Anyone forTennis.......Wimbledon 2013

[pastoralguy]

If, say, Henman had won 4 years ago,

But he didn't, did he...

[amateur51]

But he didn't, did he...

[scottycelt]

I'm sure he would, but he must feel a pang or two, I should think. He'd have to be a saint not to ...

Well, as I decided to beatify him on this thread he's already half-way there, Mary ...

I agree with your comments, especially regarding Andy's elder brother Jamie who is a very good tennis player in his own right.

Fortunately it seems that Jamie does not have Andy's huge ambition to be the best in the business. He appears to be happy with his lot and is clearly very proud of his younger brother. In that respect these two brothers do not have an obvious rivalry like the Milibands.

I suspect the majority of us have a lot more in common with Jamie than Andy. We can't all be No 1 (or 2), and, in any case, most of us would probably much prefer the precious privacy that relative anonymity brings?

Certainly count me in as one of those!

[french frank]

And perhaps three distinct Wimbledon singles titles would genuinely merit a knighthood?

In which case, looking at it from another point of view, if Bob Geldof and Terry Wogan got 'honorary' knighthoods (Wogan's now 'official') why not knighthoods for, say, Bjorn Borg or Roger Federer for contributing so much to a British tradition? Did anyone suggest a damehood for Virginia Wade (1977) or Ann Haydon-Jones (1969)? Still, I suppose the political situation was less awkward then .

Wade seems to have got an OBE and Jones zilch. Inflation?

[salymap]

I can understand a man accepting a knighthood; one or two conductors waited for years,but I would refuse a damehood in the unlikely event of its being offered.

It sounds redolent of pantomime to me. Why can't women be a 'Lady' ?

[Mr Pee]

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

Well, the three sets that it took Andy Murray to win lasted nearly three and a half hours. The two sets that decided the ladies title took barely an hour.

'Nuff said.

[johncorrigan]

Why can't women be a 'Lady' ?

...'cos there ain't nothin' like a dame...

[Dave2002]

What is the BBC playing at? I don't dislike Sue Barker, but the BBC could have edited out the section in the programme on Andy where she asked about the Dunblane shooting. What was the point of that? Did he authorise it to be shown?

OK - it shows he's emotional, but we knew that anyway. What would anyone expect someone who'd been in that situation to respond?

[scottycelt]

It sounds redolent of pantomime to me ...

The whole honours system became a complete pantomime years ago, mainly thanks to Harold Wilson, way back in the 1960's. The very idea of Sir Andy Murray is really just too ridiculous to contemplate. Only similarly-inclined bandwagon politicians like David Cameron could possibly think it a good idea.

On the other hand, considering some of the other sportsmen, pop stars etc who have been awarded knighthoods in recent years it could easily be argued that it might seem just as ridiculous to now deny Murray one ...

[french frank]

Well, the three sets that it took Andy Murray to win lasted nearly three and a half hours. The two sets that decided the ladies title took barely an hour.

'Nuff said.

It's how it goes. In 1982 Connors beat McEnroe 3–6, 6–3, 6–7, 7–6, 6–4. In 1984 McEnroe beat Connors 6-1, 6-1, 6-2.

[Flosshilde]

Expecting logic and consistency from the Honours system is your error, Boilk

Sending Tory MPs off for their lengthy Summer break with a spring in their step seems a likely motive - how can the Scots now vote to be beastly to the English when the English are being so nice to their Big Braw Heilin Laddie?

I don't think Dunblane is in the Highlands, & he's spent most of the last few years in the UsA anyway, hasn't he?

[alywin]

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.

Oh, Richard, I most certainly *have* been paying attention. *Too* much, some might say. And yes, I'm perfectly well aware of Stak and Darcis' rankings: they're there in black and white italics in my programme, for a start. (Not only that, but I knew their names and knew they were both better grasscourt players than their rankings might indicate, and that Stak might be tricky, which I suspect the majority of British tennis-watchers couldn't say.) And you seem to be implying that I said it was laughable for the no. 3 and 5 seeds to be beaten by players outside the top 100, when what I said was that it was laughable for anyone to make it to a Slam final without meeting a player from inside the top 20. I stand corrected in that: having since checked up on these things, it's not quite as rare as I thought, but it's not common, either. But really, to have seeds 3, 5, 11 and 14 all knocked out before the third round and to lose 6, 10 and 18 equally early to injury and be left only with a claycourter at 15 (and this in only half of the draw) was a bit ridiculous. Not to mention unnecessary: Murray's way too good a player not to have got through most of those without any problems if he'd had to face them anyway.

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.

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.

Did I ever claim that Henman was a better player? That really would be ridiculous. I just said I like his game better: Murray, particularly when he forgets to be aggressive (as he still does), and goes all defensive on the baseline, can annoy the heck out of me and I just want to slap him and tell him to buck his ideas up. Anyway, thankfully he wasn't doing that on Sunday - he seemed to be playing really well, the bits I was watching. And yes, as you say, he sometimes made Djokovic look ordinary - and sometimes it seems to me Djokovic managed that quite nicely on his own: he's not really been looking his old invulnerable self for months now (except maybe for Monaco, which I didn't see) (and no, I don't believe in the "curse of Del Potro" :) )

[scottycelt]

Did I ever claim that Henman was a better player? That really would be ridiculous. I just said I like his game better: Murray, particularly when he forgets to be aggressive (as he still does), and goes all defensive on the baseline, can annoy the heck out of me and I just want to slap him and tell him to buck his ideas up.

Aly, I certainly agree with your point about unnecessary 'defensiveness' and I'm fairly confident that view will be shared by the overwhelming majority of Murray-watchers! His other long-standing weakness is that annoying tendency to expend thought and energy by berating the world and his wife for occasional misfortune.

Only on Sunday he lost three break points and the very first game by openly concentrating his thoughts on a slightly uncomfortable shoe rather than simply delaying such thoughts until the next rest-period. To be fair, there have been some improvements in this regard but he can do more by eradicating such remaining remnants of amateurism completely. Lendl recently said as much in public so the ball here is well and truly in Murray's court. (sorry!) Where Murray has clearly progressed is in his first serve, which used to be his main downfall, but is now as good as any in the game.

That is why I believe Murray has the clear potential to be even better than he is at present. I'm not sure his current rivals are in quite the same position. The main danger to any period of Murray dominance could well come from talented, younger players suddenly breaking through from the lower ranks. I hope they do as there is not a lot to be said for a Federer or Williams-type dominance as far as the watching fan is concerned?

[scottycelt]

I don't think Dunblane is in the Highlands, & he's spent most of the last few years in the UsA anyway, hasn't he?

http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/highland-cathedral-dunblane-cathedral/Memory/48ea6371-14b5-42ae-9c43-a169008cf971

A border-line case, I think, Flossie.

Dunblane used to be in Perthshire (which is certainly considered part of the Highlands?) before it was switched to Stirlingshire.

Murray's home is in London, near Wimbledon itself, and he travels periodically with his team to Miami for training purposes.

It's not really a Sean Connery-type situation.

[johncorrigan]

http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/hig...3-a169008cf971



A border-line case, I think, Flossie.

Dunblane used to be in Perthshire (which is certainly considered part of the Highlands?) before it was switched to Stirlingshire.

Certainly parts of Stirlingshire and Perthshire traverse the Highland fault line, scotty. The line running from Arran to Stonehaven would pass a bit north of Dunblane through places like Callender and indeed just north of Perth. So strictly speaking Andy's oor wee Central laddie, in my opinion...but he's still great.

The question running up here is: Andy winning Wimbles - Scotland's greatest sporting achievement? ...not that there's loads of competition mind you.