wtf is wrong with medical science, that they can't fix a bit of a hurty hip with a, virtually, unlimited budget?
Andy Murray to retire after Wimbledon 2019
- Thread starter Bojan11
- Start date
Very likeable person, I think.
Its terrible to be forced to retire, but he can retire knowing he has achieved something most can only dream of. One of the best sportsman we've had in the last decade alongside Lewis Hamilton and Mo Farah.
He's a difficult player to judge - brilliant at his peak and could go 'toe to toe' with anyone but completely overshadowed by the greatness of his peers, albeit 3 players who will go down as amongst the greatest athletes of all time.
Maybe it doesn't matter but I never got the same 'joy' from watching Murray like I did with Federer but ultimately, when I'm trying to think of the negatives surrounding Murray, I keep on circling back to the fact that he isn't on the same level as the 'legends', which is unfair as he achieved so much - he is probably in the top 5 players in the past 20 odd years, which is an incredible achievement in any field/sport and easily the best British Tennis player in generations.
Great career and he should be celebrated amongst the best British sports people of all time.
Maybe it doesn't matter but I never got the same 'joy' from watching Murray like I did with Federer but ultimately, when I'm trying to think of the negatives surrounding Murray, I keep on circling back to the fact that he isn't on the same level as the 'legends', which is unfair as he achieved so much - he is probably in the top 5 players in the past 20 odd years, which is an incredible achievement in any field/sport and easily the best British Tennis player in generations.
Great career and he should be celebrated amongst the best British sports people of all time.
Gutted really. He's the greatest British player of all time and a great ambassador for the sport. He's a bit unlucky to have played in the most difficult era ever and would probably go down as one of the greatest if born a few years later or earlier. But very sad to see, he will be a huge miss for tennis.
did he look big 4 material to you, up close?
what do you mean? He's a good tennis player. In another era he'd have won more than he has. I think he was playing with an injury last year when I seen him.
Like, greatest British tennis player, right?
He's been playing with hip pain for a while. Seems like pushing for the #1 ranking is what exacerbated it. He deserved the accolade though, so I am glad he achieved it.
He's a clearly very likeable person but I do think he was a class below the other three and the class above the rest. Best of luck to him in retirement.
I like Murray a great deal. Hope he can make it to Wimbledon to go out the way he deserves.
You forgot an icon, the incredible Harry Kane.
Why do English people associate themselves as British when referring to good performances from Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish athletes? But when athletes from those countries perform poorly the Britishness goes out the window and those people are back to being English only.
Such as who? I've always thought that was a bit of a joke surrounding Murray (one that got killed very quickly to.)
I'd imagine in other sports it's cos there is national teams i.e the English national football team so Harry Kane would be referred to as English by association of that where as Murray has no national team so people say British. Same thing happens with Chris Hoy, Mo Farah etc.
The ultimate grand slam bottler. Never understood how he made a mess of so many finals and big matches at those tournaments. For eg he got ragdolled by Federer at the '12wimbledon and a few weeks later on the same court managed to beat him easily. It was clearly mental as he could usually hang with them any day of the week.
The fact that it's a big 3 and not a big 4 is all his doing.
The fact that it's a big 3 and not a big 4 is all his doing.
Nonsense. Winning 3 slams does not make you a "bottler" by any definition. He was just not quite at the level of Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.
It doesn't really happen. Re Murray a simple linguistics study has proved that...
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/24/andy-murray-scottish-british-tennis
"In the UK, broadsheets were more likely to refer to Murray as Scottish, while the tabloids called him British but none of the descriptions tended to change with the result of the matches"
The only reason to talk of a big four is so that Murray could be included. No one would have roddick and Federer down as the big two before Nadal came along. There was Federer and everyone else.
In Murray's case there was three of the greatest of all time and someone who who would have been a worthy top three of his generation in most other eras as the 4th best.
In Murray's case there was three of the greatest of all time and someone who who would have been a worthy top three of his generation in most other eras as the 4th best.
‘Bottler’ is a juvenile way of putting it (the entire post is there to bait you) but there’s no doubt that Murray had some sort of mental block in these big matches. He was never a lights out sort of player, but his forehand would be a lot more passive and his second serve speed would drop considerably in many of his slam finals. He would never play his best. He didn’t have that issue (not as much, anyway) during less-pressure best of three Masters finals. He destroyed Federer and Djokovic in some of those matches.
Lendl played a big part in changing this. But Murray doesn’t have the slam count his game merits. As I said earlier, it’s an outlier in comparison to the rest of his career achievements (which stack up with anybody around the six slam mark). On the other hand, it would have been interesting to see how he would have got on if he had the luxury of playing a Tsonga, or that long-named Greek bloke, to swat away and get that monkey off his back straight away. I suspect he’d have played differently in some of those finals.
That's the same number as Stan who didn't even have half many finals. That's the definition of bottling. He was more than good enough to win more, there's a reason he has that many masters titles.
His master's 1000 finals record is 14-7 (only 6 weren't matches vs the big 3 and he's 5-1 in those ones)
His grand slam finals record is 3-8 (only one match didn't include a member of the big 3, which he won)
If that's not bottling, what is?
Stan got his first slam win against an injured Nadal. As a poster above said, Murray had some losses because he came up against the greatest players. If he'd gotten the Raonic Wimbledon final earlier I think it would have eased some of the mental pressure that built up. I still think it's harsh to call him a 'bottler' though. While there were definitely times where his mentality let him down, the fact is that the other three are just better.
According to this logic, United bottled the last two CL finals.
How? we didn't have a history of competing and beating the Barca side. I understand the cover up, oh the competition was so damn good... which is great and all if he had a general awful record against those players like the rest of the tour who regularly got spanked. You can't accuse them of bottling anything, they just weren't good enough until Stan became the man.
He's 5 and 5 against Djoko in master's 1000 finals. Why then is he 2-5 in grand slam finals?
Outside of grand slams he actually narrowly leads in his head to head vs Federer (10-9). He still somehow managed to lose every final against him.
Well there is no logic in the general use of the word "bottling".
Are they better? sure, but they were never that much better. Stan has a 3-1 finals record and he played against them. You can take the 1 vs Nadal out but then Murray had a gimme vs Raonic.
I think the main takeaway from having a big four is to say that no one has held the top 2 rankings outside of these for the past 13 years.
It's been the big 3 who have taken home 47 out of the last 55 major titles though.
It's been the big 3 who have taken home 47 out of the last 55 major titles though.
Why Wimbledon though? How is he going to play until then?
Is he a guaranteed wild card in Wimbledon?
Come on, Mrs S, stupid question, he must be.
Come on, Mrs S, stupid question, he must be.
Last edited:
Certainly if he wants to play. There's no way that they wouldn't reserve one for him if he feels that a send-off at Wimbledon is the way he wants to go out. If he can't play I would have thought they will do some sort of presentation for him there.
Having to do that once every 80 years or so is not too big of an abuse of the system!
I believe his first round Australian match is set to be played tomorrow (Monday), "not before 7am GMT" and is on Eurosport.
Worth a watch of what could be his final match.
Worth a watch of what could be his final match.
Rather not watch if that's his final match.
When you look at all his slam final his only "freebie" was Raonic and he was very comfortable in straight sets in that one.
Brilliant to see him winning a set just now, the fight is still there if not the fitness obviously.
Just hope he can make it to Wimbledon. Would get an amazing reception on CC (heck all of the Aussies have been supporting him tonight which is great) and I could actually see him winning if he played a servebot in the first round as he can still return serve fine.
United beat Barca the previous season in the CL semi final (07-08) so actually similar to the point you're making about Murray.
Grand slam finals are totally different beasts to anything else in Tennis. I do think Murray started passively in too many of them and once a Fed or Nole get a set up it's very difficult to combat that. Murray isn't someone that can hit you off the court either like peak Wawrinka could against Djokovic in FO final 2015 for instance.
One thing I never understood was him also want to serve second. It's a bit like wanting to take penalties second in a shoot out, just heaps unneccesary pressure to keep up with opposition.
Agree with every word.
I’ll miss watching Muzza dearly. Many of my greatest sporting memories have been watching his big wins. Staying up incredibly late to watch his first Grand Slam, watching his second Olympic gold with a load of drunk Scots at the Edinburgh Fringe, seeing him smash Federer and Djokovic for his first Olympics and Wimbledon.
Hope he gets one last proper victory, even if that’s hobbling to a first round win at Wimbledon it would be phenomenal.
You're being disingenuous, the 07/08 team was nothing like the Pep sides.
The only difference in the grand slams to the rest of the tour is longer matches. That would be a decent excuse if he wasn't one of the best athletes on tour.
He had his own style, don't think there's a case to be made about that. He was an exceptional counter puncher and had incredible court craft. His second serve and his passive approach sometimes on his forhand being his only weaknesses. Murray has dished out some of the best exhibitions of tennis ever seen. Saying his talent didn't warrant more than 3 grand slams is nonsense, regardless of era and competition.
Nadal seems to do the same in big matches which never seems to harm him.
4/5 would've been right for Murray, obviously should've won an AO with all the finals he made and probably another Wimbledon aswell. Problem was it took until 25 for his maiden slam win.
Nadal is just the best ever on clay, only 6 of his GS have been outside clay so not too far ahead of Murray in that respect. Roger the GOAT.
Probably best comparison is with Nole. Djokovic when he was 23 only had one slam and had his issues in his game and was also constantly losing finals to likes of Nadal, Federer....and Murray.
Made some changes to his game and he's now comfortably 10 + in slams. I do think under pressure on BPs and with his second serve he's simply a better match player than Murray.
Could flip it the other way...likes of Berdych,Gasquet, Tsonga and David Ferrer all made many quarters, semi finals and finals and none of them won a slam and they're all well into their 30s now.
Nadal is just the best ever on clay, only 6 of his GS have been outside clay so not too far ahead of Murray in that respect. Roger the GOAT.
Probably best comparison is with Nole. Djokovic when he was 23 only had one slam and had his issues in his game and was also constantly losing finals to likes of Nadal, Federer....and Murray.
Made some changes to his game and he's now comfortably 10 + in slams. I do think under pressure on BPs and with his second serve he's simply a better match player than Murray.
Could flip it the other way...likes of Berdych,Gasquet, Tsonga and David Ferrer all made many quarters, semi finals and finals and none of them won a slam and they're all well into their 30s now.
Yeah 2nd at the last Olympics was really unsuccessful. The UK is one of the most successful sporting nations both currently and in history, what shite are you chatting?
Out of the Aussie Open in the first round, surely this is it. A sad day for Scotland.
lol
lol
For all the optimism around him giving the match a good shake and him saying he’ll give another operation a go (a resurfacing of the joint, I think) his own surgeon didn’t sound too optimistic a day or two beforehand.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jan/13/andy-murray-surgeon-difficult-wimbledon-tennis
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jan/13/andy-murray-surgeon-difficult-wimbledon-tennis