Do you believe Murray has reached his peak level?

He may not win a slam but he's still improving and you can't ask for any more than that.

This year was the best I've seen him on the clay and up until Fed beat Novak at RG, Murray was the closest taking him to a final set TB in Rome.

Murray was at his best when he played his USO final as well as AO 2009. I don't know why he didn't capitalize on that streak of form.
I don't think he has peaked, he's got plenty of room for improvement, but time is running out a bit for him, he needs to get his skates on asap.

Murray was at his best when he played his USO final as well as AO 2009. I don't know why he didn't capitalize on that streak of form.

I think you mean the AO10 when he lost to Roger, and yes he should have won that no excuses.

I think he can improve but really needs to sort out his coaching situation. The year that he has had since splitting with Miles MacLagan has been similar in results to the previous year apart from a better clay court season. I think he really needs to work more with a top coach to gain the consistency (i.e not going walkabout in the middle of a match) and confidence to take him to the next level.

I believe he has peaked, but he's still a chance to win a slam if he finds the top guys under par for once, which it's not so unlikely.

Murray is in his peak at the moment.

Murray is in his peak at the moment.

Debatable.

22-27 is the prime for tennis players and murray is right in that window. I think Andy can get better, I mean last year who would have predicted the kind of season Novak would have. I actually thought this year with him working out his serve at the end of last year and getting to the USO final that Novak would win a grandslam and pass Roger for #2. But never thought he would be number #1 and beat Nadal 5 times. Still, there seems to be something missing from Andy's game or mentality that holds him back. I think he will win a slam if he keeps working hard and like others have pointed out gets a real good coach. But maybe Andy is destined to be the best player ever to never win a slam. Personally, I think Andy will get 2 to 3 slams in the future. But again I thought he would get one this year, maybe the USO is his chance?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Murray is in his peak at the moment.

Debatable.

Not really. What will be said of Djokovic if he has a drought next season?

Like all the Nadal and Federer doubters

I've said for a long time now that Andy needs a top class coach
Full Time - not just every now and then !

Cahill has managed to instill some self-belief into him but his
mental attitude still needs work. IF he gets the right attitude
he will exceed our expectations, of this I am sure.

Totally agree

Calder106 wrote:Totally agree

Gorsh (blush)

His tennis is almost as good as it'll probably ever be.

Problem is he still needs to grow up a little bit. Nothing wrong with shedding a few tears at home in Scotland per se but he has this habit of letting the big occasion get to him. As his game matures (and I'm talking here of his mental fortitude) then perhaps he'll have a better chance of performing at the highest level when the chips are down.

I honestly believe though that time is not on his side. He's probably got a couple of years at the very most where his chances of breaking his slam duck are at their greatest.

I agree, I think if murray doesn't win a slam in the next 2 to 3 years max, his chance has come and gone. He has to get one of the next 9 to 13 slams so to speak. I really thought he would do it this year, so far it hasn't happened he has one more chance this season to do it. Andy relies a lot on his speed and he will only have peak speed for another 2 or 3 years tops.

If crying is an example of not being grown up enough, say that to all the slam winners when they first lifted the crown.

But I can't see that getting emotional is a hurdle to winning a slam. Nadal is often at his best when he is moody and highly charged. Even the omnipotent Federer will show his frustrations if its not going his way.

I think Andy "matured" at the beginning of last year, as a result of losing to Federer in a match he could have been in better contention. Having said that, its very debatable if there is a process to divide mental strength from physical (physiological) strength, the two are very closely related at the top levels of all sports. Both are needed to get into the higher echelons and once there, they are inseparable, both feeding off the other.

Confidence is the mitigating factor when two top players are vying for the big crown, and it shifts from one to the other like a see saw, the 2008 Wimbledon final being a prime example of that. Both players at the height of their game trying to out confidence each other.

Murray IMO is there, he just needs to believe in himself. He has not had the luxury of a slam under his belt, and each year he doesn't achieve it that belief will become harder to attain. Its not a personal belief that he can win a slam, its a belief at the core moments of a match that he has the tools to to go one shot further or produce the shot to win the big point.

Daft question first up as people are forever pointing to areas Andy can improve in. If he implements those improvements then I cannot see how he has reached his peak level.

craig

WE know where he can improve, but maybe he is too limited to make these changes after 6 years on the regular tour? Thin kwe should accept by now that he does not like getting told what he should be practising, but instead will focus on how he likes to play and nto go into unknown territories...

Or maybe you are far too close-minded to see that he is still improving as can be seen by results alone this year:-

Best clay court season ever this year.

Best grass court season ever this year.

One of only two players to reach the semis (or better) at all three slams so far this year.

I would say areas of his game that are improving are the mental side of things but further improvement needed, a more consistent first serve percentage and stronger second serve and improved forehand though it has improved as well of late. Besides we (with a tennis brain) know he isn't too far away considering his slam record compared to anyone outside the top four so even miniscule improvements could be enough.

I think Murray has probably exceeded what one might expect of him given his natural gifts, at least it strikes me as being that way based on his style of play. His forehand simply isn't good enough and he doesn't play the shot like a natural athlete. His footwork around the forehand is clumsy compared to the top 3 and the stroke itself laboured.

He'll improve a bit in various areas but I don't see him ever having enough to win a slam.

He probably hasn't reached his peak yet but he shoudl not be too far. I don;t understand though why a tall player like him hasn;t got a better FH.

Tall players usually can hit flatter and almost all have a very good FH and Murray does sometimes, but hasn't got the confidence to hit it often enough....This same lack of confidence that prevents him from having a better second serve.

He really needs to work on this. It might come suddenly and then he will be a very tough player.

Is it all about tightness and the inneficiency that comes with trying too hard and being too self-conscious? You know that when Rafa hits a forehand his whole world is nothing other than that forehand whereas with Murray there's problably all kinds of stuff going through his head. Such as a general feeling of unease with that shot, the lack of trust in it.

Murray has achieved so much, but a few years ago it was much more relaxing to watch him in the masters series, believing he would always go v deep (is that just my perception?) He often looked just too strong for the majority of the field.
Of course, he still looks the class player, but after the last two slam defeats there seems to be less conviction in his play sometimes and he often appears more vulnerable to upsets.

I sometimes wonder how much Andy really enjoys the tour, he surrounds himself with an entourage that have done wonders for his fitness but also seem to replace the group of mates that he might have hung out with if his teenage years had been more average and anyone who does not fit into that dynamic, however they might benefit his game, is not going to have an easy ride. Peter Fleming was asked about what he thought AM should do re coaching situation on Eurosport last year, rolled his eyes and said basically it doesn't matter if he is not going to listen - presumably these guys are privy to an awful lot of gossip.

I really hope that Murray can make the break through, because I am sure that with one slam under his belt he would go from strength to strength, just as his confidence and play soared after well publicised victories over Federer, Djokovic and occasionally Nadal in various Masters tournaments, but he is going to have to really dig deep and to want every point.

Lastly, I really think his team should get up and leave the court next time he throws a wobbly towards them - he might just find with no-one to 'blame' or rant at that he has to concentrate that anger against his opponent consistently and that he can manage all on his own where it matters - the court.

Murray starting playing beatifully against Nadal in the semi only to miss a sitter in the second set for break points and after that he went to pieces a bit. He has to believe more in his attacking ability and not get so upset when he misses chances.

Or maybe you are far too close-minded to see that he is still improving as can be seen by results alone this year:-

Best clay court season ever this year.

Best grass court season ever this year.

That in itself is a problem, he started improving on the clay and the grass and this took impetus away from his hard court strengths, losing to Donald Young and Bogomolov Jnr in first match really showed a sort of decline imo.

Err what stands out more? Defeats against those players in a Masters event or a Slam Final on the same surface in Australia? Tennis fans in general, in years to come, will remember his Australian Open Final defeat and the rest pales in to insignificance.

As I said he only needs very little improvement otherwise can people please explain how he has reached so many slam finals?

I suppose the question is "has Murray reached his peak" not "is there room for improvement in his game".

IMO areas that he could improve would be his forehand (in particular his forehand down the line and his aggressive forehand). His first serve percentage and his second serve. His mental attitude on court (often he appears to be fighting himself as well as his opponant) and the way he mentally recovers from loss. Have there been any recent improvements in these aspects of his game. By recent I mean in the last couple of years? At 24 is it too late for any fundamental changes? I'm not sure. I also think as a counter puncher his game is based on retrieval skills. Doesn't this style of player peak earlier and not stay at their peak as long as players with a more aggresive style of play who win more cheap points?

Although even without improvements he could still get a slam. If he gets lucky.

hawkeye wrote:I suppose the question is "has Murray reached his peak" not "is there room for improvement in his game".

IMO areas that he could improve would be his forehand (in particular his forehand down the line and his aggressive forehand). His first serve percentage and his second serve. His mental attitude on court (often he appears to be fighting himself as well as his opponant) and the way he mentally recovers from loss. Have there been any recent improvements in these aspects of his game. By recent I mean in the last couple of years? At 24 is it too late for any fundamental changes? I'm not sure. I also think as a counter puncher his game is based on retrieval skills. Doesn't this style of player peak earlier and not stay at their peak as long as players with a more aggresive style of play who win more cheap points?

Although even without improvements he could still get a slam. If he gets lucky.

I think rather than calling aggressive play 'cheap points', you could say it is a case of 'he who dares, wins' - when AM plays like that throughout a match, he wins!

"I sometimes wonder how much Andy really enjoys the tour, he surrounds himself with an entourage that have done wonders for his fitness but also seem to replace the group of mates that he might have hung out with if his teenage years had been more average and anyone who does not fit into that dynamic, however they might benefit his game, is not going to have an easy ride. Peter Fleming was asked about what he thought AM should do re coaching situation on Eurosport last year, rolled his eyes and said basically it doesn't matter if he is not going to listen - presumably these guys are privy to an awful lot of gossip."

=====================================================

Absolutely time please. He is determined to surround himself with people he feels happy to be around but are these the same people to bring him ultimate success?

And please of course he's allowed to cry. Most blubbers wait until they've actually won something meaningful first though. And (yes I'm going to get howls of derision for this one) he should distance himself from his mother. No. not send her packing like Bartoli tried with her dad, but to give himself some breathing room. Everything he does seems to be for his mum and whilst family loyalty is admirable so is standing on your own two feet.

Most of the improvements necessary are honestly inside his head. If he can sort out these internal demons then why not a slam winner?

newballs wrote:"I sometimes wonder how much Andy really enjoys the tour, he surrounds himself with an entourage that have done wonders for his fitness but also seem to replace the group of mates that he might have hung out with if his teenage years had been more average and anyone who does not fit into that dynamic, however they might benefit his game, is not going to have an easy ride. Peter Fleming was asked about what he thought AM should do re coaching situation on Eurosport last year, rolled his eyes and said basically it doesn't matter if he is not going to listen - presumably these guys are privy to an awful lot of gossip."

=====================================================

Absolutely time please. He is determined to surround himself with people he feels happy to be around but are these the same people to bring him ultimate success?

And please of course he's allowed to cry. Most blubbers wait until they've actually won something meaningful first though. And (yes I'm going to get howls of derision for this one) he should distance himself from his mother. No. not send her packing like Bartoli tried with her dad, but to give himself some breathing room. Everything he does seems to be for his mum and whilst family loyalty is admirable so is standing on your own two feet.

Most of the improvements necessary are honestly inside his head. If he can sort out these internal demons then why not a slam winner?

What a load of "Balls"

However you do have the appropriate user name!

newballs wrote:"I sometimes wonder how much Andy really enjoys the tour, he surrounds himself with an entourage that have done wonders for his fitness but also seem to replace the group of mates that he might have hung out with if his teenage years had been more average and anyone who does not fit into that dynamic, however they might benefit his game, is not going to have an easy ride. Peter Fleming was asked about what he thought AM should do re coaching situation on Eurosport last year, rolled his eyes and said basically it doesn't matter if he is not going to listen - presumably these guys are privy to an awful lot of gossip."

=====================================================

Absolutely time please. He is determined to surround himself with people he feels happy to be around but are these the same people to bring him ultimate success?

And please of course he's allowed to cry. Most blubbers wait until they've actually won something meaningful first though. And (yes I'm going to get howls of derision for this one) he should distance himself from his mother. No. not send her packing like Bartoli tried with her dad, but to give himself some breathing room. Everything he does seems to be for his mum and whilst family loyalty is admirable so is standing on your own two feet.

Most of the improvements necessary are honestly inside his head. If he can sort out these internal demons then why not a slam winner?

I agree with you newballs, apart from Andy's mum. Judy Murray is usually only present at the majors and doesn't follow him around on the tour. I wonder if it is because she is 'mummy' that she has attracted the opinion that you definitely share with lots of pundits,while no-one says the same about Toni Nadal and Rafa. I know that TN is Rafa's official coach, but that strikes me as an altogether more claustrophobic relationship, and I do sometimes wonder about the implications of it on Rafa's experience of the tour. In fact, Judy hasn't been in print (as far as I know) opining on how well Andy conducts himself, or the manners she has insisted upon (no, don't laugh ) when he is on court - in other words, she tends to treat Andy as more of a man than Toni has treated Rafa in the past. I think she gets an unfair press because she is very passionate courtside and highly visible therefore at the majors. I think the press have written about this relationship with a fair degree of misogyny in the past, though Judy (although she has not officially done so) is more than qualified to coach.

sports lover thanks for the compliment. I''ll pass on your best wishes to time please as well!

Seems like a certain train of thought isn't widely appreciated here. It's called the truth and probably has a lot to do with why Fleming rolled his eyes in response to that what can Andy do regarding his coaching situation as previously noted in a different post. Everyone else in tennis sees the issues but Andy wants to do his own thing. Stubborn and determined? Yes, but there is another way.

No, this isn't simply a load of old balls. More like just stating the obvious.

sportslover wrote:

newballs wrote:"I sometimes wonder how much Andy really enjoys the tour, he surrounds himself with an entourage that have done wonders for his fitness but also seem to replace the group of mates that he might have hung out with if his teenage years had been more average and anyone who does not fit into that dynamic, however they might benefit his game, is not going to have an easy ride. Peter Fleming was asked about what he thought AM should do re coaching situation on Eurosport last year, rolled his eyes and said basically it doesn't matter if he is not going to listen - presumably these guys are privy to an awful lot of gossip."

=====================================================

Absolutely time please. He is determined to surround himself with people he feels happy to be around but are these the same people to bring him ultimate success?

And please of course he's allowed to cry. Most blubbers wait until they've actually won something meaningful first though. And (yes I'm going to get howls of derision for this one) he should distance himself from his mother. No. not send her packing like Bartoli tried with her dad, but to give himself some breathing room. Everything he does seems to be for his mum and whilst family loyalty is admirable so is standing on your own two feet.

Most of the improvements necessary are honestly inside his head. If he can sort out these internal demons then why not a slam winner?

What a load of "Balls"

However you do have the appropriate user name!

That is unnecessarily dismissive sportslover - here is a novel idea - this is a forum where people exchange their ideas, opinions and feelings, so debate the point, or did you think you were?

WOW! A NEW CONCEPT in forum etiquette from *time please*

Here's another Concept T M please - lay off the player
bashing and we'll consider your point of view. In the mean time
keep your opinions to yourself !!!!!!!!!!!!

time please

Nothing against your original post.

The comment as you would have seen was aimed at new balls.

A bit of an immature post by him hence a detailed response wasn't worthwhile!

He expected a howl and got one.

Jubbahey wrote:If crying is an example of not being grown up enough, say that to all the slam winners when they first lifted the crown.

But I can't see that getting emotional is a hurdle to winning a slam. Nadal is often at his best when he is moody and highly charged. Even the omnipotent Federer will show his frustrations if its not going his way.

I think Andy "matured" at the beginning of last year, as a result of losing to Federer in a match he could have been in better contention. Having said that, its very debatable if there is a process to divide mental strength from physical (physiological) strength, the two are very closely related at the top levels of all sports. Both are needed to get into the higher echelons and once there, they are inseparable, both feeding off the other.

Confidence is the mitigating factor when two top players are vying for the big crown, and it shifts from one to the other like a see saw, the 2008 Wimbledon final being a prime example of that. Both players at the height of their game trying to out confidence each other.

Murray IMO is there, he just needs to believe in himself. He has not had the luxury of a slam under his belt, and each year he doesn't achieve it that belief will become harder to attain. Its not a personal belief that he can win a slam, its a belief at the core moments of a match that he has the tools to to go one shot further or produce the shot to win the big point.

That's one of the best posts I've read, Jubba

Solerina

Jubba has one of THE best tennis brains in the forum Solerina !

It's just a pity that certain *Admin* peeps try to wind him up!

yummymummy wrote:WOW! A NEW CONCEPT in forum etiquette from *time please*

Here's another Concept T M please - lay off the player
bashing and we'll consider your point of view. In the mean time
keep your opinions to yourself !!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually yummymummy, I wasn't 'bashing' AM. To be quite honest, I am staggered you should think I was just because I was debating points of view about his game and not subscribing to a purely uncritical 'Hello' type appreciation/adulation - which a) isn't particularly my style, or I hesitate to suggest very adult b) would make an exceedingly boring forum if everyone did, and would probably be very short lived too
if
If no-one else objects, I will continue to express my opinion on here if I should want to rather than keep them 'all to myself' if it is all the same to you

Lastly, I really don't mind if you do consider my point of view!

People seem to be getting agitated and not realise that the original post by the OP is utter piffel!!

As far as I am concerned Andy is in his peak and can only get better. Players of his quality don't become bad players. Once he ages to 28-29 he might not have the same consistency and plus new players will be on the scene.

Djokovic has had a great year and it seems his fans have got so carried away with the success without actually measuring it with time.

When Andy wins a Slam, I can guarantee that this AM fan isn't going to gloat and post silly threads about greatness and legends. I will sit back and savour it and look forward to the next one he wins.

time please wrote:

yummymummy wrote:WOW! A NEW CONCEPT in forum etiquette from *time please*

Here's another Concept T M please - lay off the player
bashing and we'll consider your point of view. In the mean time
keep your opinions to yourself !!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually yummymummy, I wasn't 'bashing' AM. To be quite honest, I am staggered you should think I was just because I was debating points of view about his game and not subscribing to a purely uncritical 'Hello' type appreciation/adulation - which a) isn't particularly my style, or I hesitate to suggest very adult b) would make an exceedingly boring forum if everyone did, and would probably be very short lived too
if
If no-one else objects, I will continue to express my opinion on here if I should want to rather than keep them 'all to myself' if it is all the same to you

Lastly, I really don't mind if you do consider my point of view!

I DO apologise TM - I mis-read your post and I truly eat humblepie at your feet (Yeeeeewwwwwwww)

I guess I am just Hyper Sensitive atm .

yummy and sportslover (is that a sign for peace? too much red wine, but hope it is)

I am a really big fan of Andy, but sometimes want to give him a big smack . Must admit I don't really understand the hyper sensitivity of some fans because while I love Rog, I have really giggled at 'Federror' posts and Shanky in the past - hey, he's human (just!)

I think people should be able to debate the weaknesses of players' games as well, and although I was an infrequent visitor to 606, I do think what made it such a vibrant forum was a combination of the knowlegeable, the witty, the ardent fans, the intellingent wums and the imbecilic ones and the generally sane and not so sane. The players are in the public eye and the forum is, by its nature, in the public domain too - I may be in minority but think that it is healthier not to try to restrict posters by and large.

Disappeared to watch the golf but thought I'd post here again.

Immature post? Guess that's dependant on how you judge levels of maturity sports lover.

I can't see though how questioning Andy's own maturity is such a big issue. Nobody can possibly argue that a maturer more stable demeanour and attitude wouldn't be helpful. Or can they?

The original question was one of whether or not Murray had reached his peak level. Well any kind of animal or human for that matter only reaches their full size and capability to do whatever they are best at when they mature into their adult form. I don't want to sound patronising but Andy IMHO still has a way to go to realise his.

Whether or not his tennis playing abilities can be viewed independantly from his level of maturity is a moot point but many pundits have started to question his on-court behaviour so there has to be at least an element of doubt regarding whether he has fully realised his tennis playing abilities or not.

I think newballs has just made a really valid point - Andy's maturity and behaviour has been the subject for discussion by commentators on both Eurosport and BBC, most generally by ex players.

A forum about tennis should really be able to discuss topical debate otherwise it loses some of its point.

It does clearly seem this was a topic do have a dig at Andy Murray more thN anything else very much in the mould of old 666. The OP has made it known in the past his dislike of Murray (putting it mildly as can be seen in his post history). Odd that again it is Murray he queries (nobody else)out of the hundreds of professionals on the tennis circuit.

I'd be able to take the OP more seriously if he were to be man enough to recognise Andy Murray as the greatest tennis player produced by Britain since Fred Perry (whether he wins a slam or not) but it won't happen as it is all anti anti anti. Sad really considering how much Andy has raised the profile of British tennis across the world.

I don't think that Murray has peaked at all becuase there are a couple of things he could do to get better. His court coverage, imagination and will to win are already there. Now he's improved his forehand he has weapons on either side, his volleys are good... He's close to the full package.

In terms of how good a player he is, just look at his return stats. When his opponent is serving his stats are as good as anyone. Returns in, points won, percentage of games won... Nobody beats him on this. Not Nadal, not Djokovic, not Federer.

Where they do beat him is on there own serve. They hit a much higher percentage of first serves in, and all have better second serves. That is the area where he can improve. It would require technical changes though, but the serve is the one area where technical changes can be made this far into a career. Murray has more 'moving body parts' during his serve than any player in the top 10 in my opinion. That makes it eratic and unpredictable (though unstoppable when it goes in).

I think he'll struggle win a slam when his first serve is around the 50% mark. If that got closer to 70% in the big matches, there would be a world of difference. It may involve taking a little off it, which would mean less aces... But would also mean more control over his service games. Let's be honest, his second serve just says 'hit me'.

So no, he hasn't reached his peak in my opinion because if he makes some technical changes to his serve i still think he can win many slams.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It does clearly seem this was a topic do have a dig at Andy Murray more thN anything else very much in the mould of old 666. The OP has made it known in the past his dislike of Murray (putting it mildly as can be seen in his post history). Odd that again it is Murray he queries (nobody else)out of the hundreds of professionals on the tennis circuit.

I'd be able to take the OP more seriously if he were to be man enough to recognise Andy Murray as the greatest tennis player produced by Britain since Fred Perry (whether he wins a slam or not) but it won't happen as it is all anti anti anti. Sad really considering how much Andy has raised the profile of British tennis across the world.

I don't know anything about the OP's posting history about AM, but I can't see anything wrong with the original post. Andy Murray is a fantastic tennis player and is wonderful for Britain, it's good that his profile is such that he is worth discussion - he is one of a triumverate/quartet of players on British forums that take the most flak - because of their success, if you think about it. They are the ones everyone wants to discuss with either positive criticism, despair or adulation, depending on what floats your boat.

BTW - Britain produced Virginia Wade and Sue Barker since Fred Perry, both of whom won majors which frequently seems to overlooked in the British tennis players to have won a major discussion - very rarely is that lament qualified with a 'male' in front of the phrase British Tennis Player - just saying!!!

time please - I was talking about male players.

As for him being one of a number of British players taking the flak then who exactly are the others? I don't see any here trying to take apart the game of James Ward, Alex Bogdanovic etc etc etc. Fair enough discuss the negative areas but the OP never wishes to discuss the positives, the slam finals, the Masters Cup wins, his slam record, him being the greatest MALE player produced by Britain for 75 years etc etc etc. He is not man enough to accept how good Andy is whether or not he wins a slam in his career - a trait possessed by posters on old 606.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I doubt that Andy can add new things to his game at this stage of his career,

Strange thing to say. Presumably Djokovic added things to his game this season. He's certainly a different player to last year. Is that something that is possible to do at 23, but not at 24?

Federer was 26 before he added the drop shot to his game!

Murray needs to improve his serve. Nothing else. Everything else in his game matches up to the other players statistically.

CaledonianCraig wrote:time please - I was talking about male players.

As for him being one of a number of British players taking the flak then who exactly are the others? I don't see any here trying to take apart the game of James Ward, Alex Bogdanovic etc etc etc. Fair enough discuss the negative areas but the OP never wishes to discuss the positives, the slam finals, the Masters Cup wins, his slam record, him being the greatest MALE player produced by Britain for 75 years etc etc etc. He is not man enough to accept how good Andy is whether or not he wins a slam in his career - a trait possessed by posters on old 606.

I know you were talking about male players craig I was making a light hearted point that it is all anyone ever does - how often have we heard the 70 odd year lament without the qualification of male - don't forget the ladies is all I was saying

The other players I was referring to who regularly receive attention, welcome and otherwise, are the others in the top three!

Well that is open to debate. After all there is a heck of a lot of fawning over Federer that far outweighs any criticism, Nadal takes flak from those with their own agenda and Novak is sort of overlooked and gets more respect than anti-posts I'd say.

The point I make is about the OP and his problem with Murray? I mean do we see him starting a thread asking whether Roger Federer is over the hill? No of course not - it is always Murray that he attacks whenever and wherever he can.