Andy Murray

[Mr Pee]

You'll like this then. It is about time we had a champion who will bring back some sophistication to Wimbledon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IT&hl=it&v=xYA_7RUSarU

Love it, LT. After watching that, I'll be supporting Djokovic this afternoon!

[Pianorak]

You'll like this then. It is about time we had a champion who will bring back some sophistication to Wimbledon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IT&hl=it&v=xYA_7RUSarU

Brilliant. I think he's good enough for RADA.

[vinteuil]

We saw Petra Kvitova in the the quarter-final on Court One last Tuesday. (It was the day the thunderstorm struck and was the only match played there). I could not believe how hard and deep she consistently hit the ball. Her opponent, Tsvetana Pironkova, is a very attractive player and took a set off her, giving her a better game than Sharapova in the final. Both women hit the ball really cleanly, always going for their shots and neither screeched.

Yes - Pironkova a most attractive player.

The main problem - for me - with Murray is that he is so unattractive, in so many ways.
For a start, he is in no way as pretty as Federer or Nadal.

[Nick Armstrong]

Quite astonishing that Djokovic is currently making Nadal look mediocre....

[mercia]

Nadal fighting back, can he take the third & fourth sets?

[salymap]

Quite astonishing that Djokovic is currently making Nadal look mediocre....

Caliban, I've had to put the TV off, shall glance at score now and then. What's the matter with Nadal today?

[Nick Armstrong]

Caliban, I've had to put the TV off, shall glance at score now and then. What's the matter with Nadal today?

Well as is the joy of these five set matches, the pendulum has swung and Nadal got the 3rd set quite easily... But until then, as Tim Henman said in the commentary, Djoko had Nadal on a string pulling him around the court and sending shots just out of reach...

It's so much about psychology isn't it? Absolutely fascinating - tiny increments of domination, initiative...

Now the fourth set

If there's one thing Rafa won't do, it's crumble Murray-style!

[pilamenon]

If there's one thing Rafa won't do, it's crumble Murray-style!

But he did pretty much, didn't he? Let's face it, this wasn't a vintage final - Rafa was clearly not at his best. He made too many unforced errors. Novak was tremendous in those first two sets - totally outplayed him, and that's where he won the game. But he, too, was wobbling badly after that, yet Rafa wasn't in the form to make him pay.

For me, enjoyment of TV tennis nowadays is impaired by the increasing obsession with celebrities and girlfriends. I find it almost painful to watch the incessant cutting to family and famous people in shades just sitting there or, worse still, reacting in slow motion. The tension and drama on the court used to be sufficient, but not for modern TV producers.

[Lateralthinking1]

Ah well, as they reminded us today, Santana said prior to his victory that grass is for cows. Today history was made. We had the first ever champion who decided to celebrate winning by eating it. Sadly, though, no impersonations.

If it all suddenly falls apart for him next month - unlikely - then he could be the new Steve Martin or someone. You might want to pick another comic actor as the example. Anyway, I felt sorry for Nadal - a particularly nice way today with that Downs Syndrome lad I thought.

Among the pluses - Nice to have truly great players in this era and a range of characters who are pleasant. It is almost as if the 1990s in tennis never happened. Hurrah.

The minuses - It wasn't a very good match was it? The psychology of it all clearly got to Nadal. Can't recall him being so poor. And while Djokovic can be very entertaining, and I was pleased for him on what is his day, his game does not seem to have the variety of shots that we have been given in recent years by Federer and Nadal.

Guess I'm saying that the final missed Federer as he was at his best- the best player of all time, absolutely no question. Oh, and it might have helped too if (i) the crowd had been just slightly more self-controlled and (ii) the BBC sound technicians hadn't botched it at the end. What on earth were they doing?

(Also agree on the celebrity and family points made by pilamenon - blame snooker's Hurricane Higgins in 1982 for that one).

[RobertLeDiable]

I suppose it's not a surprise that there are snobs on a Radio 3 message board that find Andy Murray "most offputting". The fact that he's the best tennis player we've ever had in this country and probably ever will have (yes, I know - Fred Perry was marvellous, but he played in the amateur era when only a few countries in the world competed) won't change their minds. Nor, I suspect will the fact that, though often diffident in front of the media and their mostly inane questions, he is a fine young man with real integrity, plenty of humility and a huge talent. He doesn't conform to Wimbledon's middle aged, middle class requirements in terms of the way he looks perhaps, but how refreshing that can be, just as it was when McEnroe played there, before he became a British national treasure.

Tennis is fascinating just now, with Nadal's hold on the top rung slipping to Djokovic, Federer on the slide, and Murray the only one of the rest who seems capable of breaking into the duopoly at the top. We should be proud of him. And he's done it all with almost no help from the British tennis establishment.

[Lateralthinking1]

Isn't it mostly about his comments though? Ivan Lendl lost all favour for anti-Wimbledon comments and so did Stich even though he went on to win the singles. Has never been fully accepted there to this day, it seems to me. I think the "I am Scottish" distinctions, admittedly made when Murray was young, fell a bit into that category, ie "so you hate Wimbledon then, do you?" etc

Of course, there are double standards. Henman is on the committee but he made the gross error today of referring to Justin Gimelstob being in the royal box and how it must have been a quiet day for him to have got in. Cue rapidly the others racing to shut him up with "but there's (nice) Peter Fleming too". For the full background to this, worth checking Gimelstob's Wikipedia entry. Make sure though you don't do it on a full stomach.

On no help from the British tennis establishment, isn't that the case with most of them? Buster Mottram might have been an exception but he disappeared with the demise of the National Front and after that alarming serve where he hit the ball in error at someone in the crowd or so it appeared on my television. And bear in mind that Murray has got a mother who would have given Gloria Connors a run for her money. I mean that as a compliment....... probably.

[Mr Pee]

I suppose it's not a surprise that there are snobs on a Radio 3 message board that find Andy Murray "most offputting". The fact that he's the best tennis player we've ever had in this country and probably ever will have (yes, I know - Fred Perry was marvellous, but he played in the amateur era when only a few countries in the world competed) won't change their minds. Nor, I suspect will the fact that, though often diffident in front of the media and their mostly inane questions, he is a fine young man with real integrity, plenty of humility and a huge talent. He doesn't conform to Wimbledon's middle aged, middle class requirements in terms of the way he looks perhaps, but how refreshing that can be, just as it was when McEnroe played there, before he became a British national treasure.

Tennis is fascinating just now, with Nadal's hold on the top rung slipping to Djokovic, Federer on the slide, and Murray the only one of the rest who seems capable of breaking into the duopoly at the top. We should be proud of him. And he's done it all with almost no help from the British tennis establishment.

Well said. I trust my initial post on this thread was taken in the light-hearted manner intended!! Murray is no. 4 in the world, and that is quite an achievement in itself. The pressure on him every Wimbledon is probably more than most of us can imagine, yet he regularly makes it to the semi-final. Nadal and Federer are, when at their best, quite stunning players, as is Murray. He'll do it one day, I'm sure.

[Richard Tarleton]

The problem with Murray - as Boris Becker is quoted as saying in the Sunday Times today, but which is also glaringly obvious -lies between his ears. Apparently he's always resisted the services of a sports psychologist, yet this is the area where he's most vulnerable. His game is right up there, but mentally there's a huge gulf between him and the top three - he crumbles easily.

[amateur51]

The problem with Murray - as Boris Becker is quoted as saying in the Sunday Times today, but which is also glaringly obvious -lies between his ears. Apparently he's always resisted the services of a sports psychologist, yet this is the area where he's most vulnerable. His game is right up there, but mentally there's a huge gulf between him and the top three - he crumbles easily.

This short piece, full of psychological insight, comes courtesy of the Sunday Mercury:

http://www.sundaymercury.net/entertainment-news/celebrity-news/2011/07/03/wimbledon-2011-andy-murray-s-mum-s-crush-leaves-him-red-faced-66331-28983181/

Sums it up nicely, I'd say

[RobertLeDiable]

Murray has said that he tried a sports psychologist a few years ago and found it useless. As it happens the psychologist in question was on the Today programme the other day, being asked about the advice he'd give Andy now, and it was such a bunch of platitudinous psychobabble, the like of which any of us could have thought of, I can well see why Murray decided it wasn't for him.

And as for Becker saying "it's in his head" - well, duh! Everybody knows tennis is a mental game and every player strives to achieve the incredible levels of continuous concentration needed to win at the highest level. Andy Murray has loads of titles to his name including 6 at masters level, so he knows how to do it. This year alone he's got to two semifinals and a final in the three grand slam events played. You don't manage that if you're a mental midget. But winning the ultimate prize requires even better mental focus and that is given to only two or three players at any given time. It's not such a fault that he hasn't quite got there yet. As has been said, though, he's too talented not to.

As for jibes about his mother - a nice, honest, hard-working woman who has dedicated her life to training the young tennis talents this country needs - those are misogyny, pure and simple. If his father attended his matches, no-one would mention it. It's revolting and it shames this country that it's so widespread.