Anyone forTennis.......Wimbledon 2013

[Mr Pee]

Getting back to tennis ... Andy Murray was magnificent today, and thoroughly deserved his win. Despite the final score, it was a finely balanced encounter, with more 20+plus rallies than I can remember for a long time. This sort of play is so much more exciting than the old boring serve-and-folly stuff we had to endure for so long.

Both players played really well, but Andy was definitely more resourceful than his opponent and played some quite extraordinary shots. The winning shot before the one which won him the title was magnificent. Most of all, though, it was Andy's increased confidence and his lack of dwelling too long over mistakes which told the most. The old Andy would have crumbled after missing the three match points he had earlier on. Perhaps it was the win at the Olympics, perhaps it was the US Open, perhaps it was Ivan Lendl's contribution, perhaps it was a combination of all three: whatever was responsible, Andy Murray gave a great demonstration of tennis-craft today. Well done, Andy!

[eighthobstruction]

I could have done without the Heroic Music inbetween sets as a slow motion montage of Andy played....was that the music from the film Das But....

[Nick Armstrong]

I could have done without the Heroic Music inbetween sets as a slow motion montage of Andy played....was that the music from the film Das But....

Terrible wasn't it...

[french frank]

It was certainly the perfect answer to anyone who thought that with Federer and Nadal out, it was an easy ride: trouncing the No 1 seed in three sets.

[pastoralguy]

Well done, Andy. On top of all the Wimbledon glory, he has also put his home town, Dunblane, on the map for an extremely positive reason and not just the terrible massacre by a madman in 1996.

We were in Dunblane last Wimbledon and the level of support for their native son was a joy to behold.

[alywin]

Just catching up here, now Wimbledon 2013 is all over (well, apart from the joys of doing Murray's victory to death in all the papers and any other form of media you may choose)

I find it difficult to get worked up about tennis since Tim retired He was so beautiful to watch, even if he didn't get as far as Andy. I suppose I watch tennis as ballet, and I'm usually disappointed!

It was a shame about Nadal, but it was the only match so far that I've found exciting. On the whole I don't care much who wins, and I haven't the faintest interest in the nationalistic side of it, so Murray means nothing to me.

Yes, I choose players to like based on their game (and sometimes their behaviour) - that means I will probably always appreciate Henman's game over Murray's, Edberg's over Sampras', and so on. As far as I'm concerned, nationality comes into tennis only on about 3 occasions: the Olympics, the Davis Cup and Fed Cup. Apart from that, players are effectively freelance, and independent of any national team, so if I want to choose a Frenchman over a Brit I'll do so.

I don't follow tennis, never watch it, so boring, but if the favourites, such as Nadal and Federer get knocked out early doesn't it make the rest of the fortnight more exciting when there are unknown Belgians, (and who's the energetic guy with the dreads, Dustin something) possibly making their way to the Finals?

Not necessarily, and certainly not this year, with all those ridiculous injuries on the first Wednesday as well. What tends to happen is that you get the odd player who giant-kills, and then (except for Sabine Lisicki) usually goes out tamely to a much lesser player in the next round, leaving a hole in the draw where a couple of distinctly less-talented players manage to sneak through way further than they deserve. It certainly played into Murray's hands this year: as world no. 2, he managed to get what you might call a highway laid right through to the final without having to play anyone from within the world's top 20 (and he was distinctly in trouble against the world no. 56 in the quarterfinals), which is pretty laughable (I don't know whether it's ever happened before, but I doubt it). It could have been a real disadvantage to him, not having a match against a really high-level player to get him ready for the final, but fortunately Djokovic was playing unusually erratically so it didn't matter.

On the matter of Djokovic, I agree with those who commented on his graciousness in defeat. He's not a player I particularly like - I find his game dull, some of his comments in the past distinctly unsporting, and his King-Kong-like shirt-ripping antics when he wins big matches extremely distasteful - but his post-match behaviour today was exemplary. He and Murray have been friends since Juniors, and I think he probably understands better than anyone what Murray has had to go through the last few years with the insane media pressure.

[scottycelt]

Right now I've decided that Andy Murray is even more gorgeous than Miss Lisicki ...

However, I think he should now do the decent thing by holding an immediate press conference and publicly apologising for not being nearly as nice as the lovely Tim Henman.

[Richard Tarleton]

It certainly played into Murray's hands this year: as world no. 2, he managed to get what you might call a highway laid right through to the final without having to play anyone from within the world's top 20 (and he was distinctly in trouble against the world no. 56 in the quarterfinals), which is pretty laughable

(I don't know whether it's ever happened before, but I doubt it). It could have been a real disadvantage to him, not having a match against a really high-level player to get him ready for the final, but fortunately Djokovic was playing unusually erratically so it didn't matter.

Alywin, that's nonsense. You haven't been paying attention. Federer was beaten by the world no 117, Sergiy Stakhovsky. Nadal was beaten by the world no 135, Steve Darcis. It's not laughable at all, what it shows is that the standards in the mens' game are incredibly high, the margins small. That is part of the drama - on the day, the top seeds can be beaten by people way below them in the rankings.

[Sir Velo]

Alywin, that's nonsense. You haven't been paying attention. Federer was beaten by the world no 117, Sergiy Stakhovsky. Nadal was beaten by the world no 135, Steve Darcis. It's not laughable at all, what it shows is that the standards in the mens' game are incredibly high, the margins small. That is part of the drama - on the day, the top seeds can be beaten by people way below them in the rankings.

Moreover, Verdasco whom Murray beat in the quarters, had been ranked as high as 7 and is a two time quarter finalist at the US Open.

[BBMmk2]

What a mover AM was yesterday. Shots that should have been impossible to hgt back, were achieved! Good to see! The first time a Scot has won Wimbledon since 1897(I believe). There are some up and coming English players, coming through, including one from my home toww of Haywards Heath, West Sussex!

[scottycelt]

Alywin, that's nonsense. You haven't been paying attention. Federer was beaten by the world no 117, Sergiy Stakhovsky. Nadal was beaten by the world no 135, Steve Darcis. It's not laughable at all, what it shows is that the standards in the mens' game are incredibly high, the margins small. That is part of the drama - on the day, the top seeds can be beaten by people way below them in the rankings.

Of course it's nonsense. Some will never give Murray the credit he deserves whatever he achieves. Djoko sometimes looked ordinary because of Murray's ability to deal with his serve and being able to get to 'lost causes' that no other player in the world would have got anywhere near.

All the top players consistently say they have the highest regard and respect for Murray's game. They should know, not least because on many occasions they have all suffered at the hands of it.

I like Tim Henman. He was also a very good tennis player. One doesn't have to particularly like Andy Murray to simply admit that he is an even better player, a truly great one who has the potential to get even better.

I feel certain Tim Henman himself would be among the first to agree.

[amateur51]

Yes, Djokovic's little speech was nicely done.

In the end I was quite pleased that Murray won. At least he didn't need to cry this time, and Djokovic has won it once, I think. He and Murray seemed to me very equal players, so although it was only three sets (thank goodness) it was no walkover.

I'm surprised that MrPee hasn't demanded that they play two more sets so that he gets his masculine money's worth

[french frank]

He was just the opposite of so many British hopefuls in the past - he didn't crumble. And he'd already had an exceptional year - winning the US title, the Olympic gold and runner-up in the Australian Open.

[Nick Armstrong]

He was just the opposite of so many British hopefuls in the past - he didn't crumble.

Yes - I feared the worst when he won the first set... rather like the old traditional pattern with the England football team: get the first goal, then lose focus whilst the early setback galvanises the opposition who stride ahead. Massive credit that it didn't happen that way. Some amazing physical and mental training over the years, since those incidents where he went all to pieces physically (cramps, injuries) and psychologically ('victim'-style tantrums, the hysterical defeated body language). Impressive. (Ivan Lendl seems to have been instrumental in the final tempering of the Murray metal )

[salymap]

In then past it was almost a fear of winning that seemed to suddenly stop the flow of their game. Perhaps Murray has learned to pace himself and not look ahead.