posted Nov 3, 2007

Im mortal has some good points. I have often wondered why many of Murray's critics always ignore the fact that Federer didn't start to really show his potential until he was 21 and up to that stage it's worth remembering Tim beat him consistently.
I have also read on here that Murray has to show he can beat players above him. Well, tha last time I looked Federer, Roddick and Davydenko are all ranked above him.
I think rtennis has it right in that Andy loses focus at times and doesn't yet have that total single mindedness that top players need.
He should sit and watch some tapes of Pete Sampras, who was never distracted from what he had to do, no matter what happened. Think of how many times when a call went against him Pete would step up and bang down an ace.
This is what Andy needs.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 3, 2007

Getinthe bath, you've hit the nail on the head. I think a lot of the problems with our sportspeople are the tabloid media.

Murray was gonna be greater than Henman before he'd even played in an adult tournament. The result: people like me wanting to pull him apart.

Rooney, Hamilton, Henman, Owen, Flintoff to name a few have all been built up, only to fall short of expectations.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 3, 2007

For those here who think Murray is 'overrated' (though they mostly don't seem to have watched him play much), here is what Richard Gasquet had to say about him:

"Andy is a player I love to watch. It seems he is always able to play the right shot at the right moment. You know, many of today's players know how to hit hard left and right and have good volleys, but Andy knows how to do everything. He's a great player. If he had not had the wrist injury, he would have qualified for Shanghai well before this week. He would already be No 5, that's for sure, and will be a permanent member of the top eight every year from now. He has a great future, he works hard and is a great guy"

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 3, 2007

Andy, is not as good as people have built him up.
I cannot see Andy winning a grandslam. Frankly Brad Gilbert is waisting his time with that one...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 3, 2007

It just goes to show that the British media hypes up players and puts too much pressure on them before they're at their best. When Murray won the US Open juniors he was relatively unknown and was pretty much ignored. But when he has success, the media and ourselves think he should beat everyone. I think we should just enjoy him grow and learn as a tennis player.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 3, 2007

Is Murray the next Federer? At the same age, Federer was reckoned to be a great player, with great variety, great to watch and the ability to beat the best in the world. He just couldn't string together a series of wins to make that breakthrough.

That changed at Wimbledon in 2003 for Federer. Is Andy Murray in the same position? Will he make that breakthrough? Can he achieve anything like the consistent greatness of Federer?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 3, 2007

<< "That changed at Wimbledon in 2003 for Federer. Is Andy Murray in the same position? Will he make that breakthrough? Can he achieve anything like the consistent greatness of Federer?"

>> They're different animals ! Virtually all pro tennis players (and amateurs such as myself) that had seen the young Federer play had seen the complete tennis player. A full range of shots, all played with incredible grace and fluidity. But after a rapid rise up the rankings (beating Sampras at Wimby '01) - he appeared to falter at the last hurdle. For a while he seemed to be all style but no substance. He wasn't winning when he was expected to (I remember seeing him outplay yet still lose the Milan '02 final to journeyman Sanguinetti who'd previously never won an ATP title !). It was Wimbledon '03 that changed that.

Murray is not regarded in the same light, although, if anything, he has an even larger repertoire of shots. Murray is still improving, and still climbing up the rankings. He is currently meeting or exceeding (realistic) expectations. So he is currently not in the position that Federer was in for a year or two.

I should also point out that Murray's style of play is most unusual for the ATP circuit (in contrast Federer played the sort of style that you would expect of a Grand Slam champion) - in a way it doesn't sit right - I certainly can't think of a great tennis player that played with Andy's style.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 3, 2007

murray is 20 years old, just think about that,he is still coping with body change and u can see the way he has bulked up over the last 6 months,next year u will c the real andy murray, no.4 for sure.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 4, 2007

Murray certainly has a much more interesting game to watch and far superior range of shots and his back court game is anytime better than Henman or Rusedski who could not play 4 shots together from the baseline without some awful blunder.
He needs to string the more winners together and more important, he must beat his contemporaries at least once is not regularly in order to get further up. Otherwise his whole career will be blocked by Nadal, Djoko and possibbly Gasquet. Then there are the young guns who are really good notably Cillic, Gulbis and de Potro.
Ferrer may be the one to watch in 2008 as his game has improved out of sight compared with contemporaries Verdasco and Lopez. He also has more variety than the boring game of Robredo who will soon go backwards.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 5, 2007

He did well on quetion of sport. He deserved the top 8 just for that.

add comment | complain about this comment