Aussie Tennis Open

He's in a different league to Henman though, considering he is 21 and pundits from all over the shop think he'll win a major. People and pundits i have a lot of respect for. Even the top players on the tour are backing him to do it, it's really more of an if than when so you better get used to Murray Mania or Andemonium for the next 10 years. :lol:
 
He's in a different league to Henman though, considering he is 21 and pundits from all over the shop think he'll win a major. People and pundits i have a lot of respect for. Even the top players on the tour are backing him to do it, it's really more of an if than when so you better get used to Murray Mania or Andemonium for the next 10 years. :lol:

I agree. Barring injury, he likely will win a Major. And I wouldn't(and wasn't) have said that last year. But you have to remember that Pete Sampras, one of the best players ever, tipped Henman to win Wimbledon on a number of occasions. Tennis players will often give the answer that's expected of them when they are asked a question about a player from the country they are in at the time/playing against/of the journalist's nationality etc etc.

He has a big chance, once he keeps working at his game. Hopefully he will, as it's far more exciting with a lot of top class players battling it out, rather than just a couple.
 
While it shouldn't personality does matter in tennis because it's an individual sport. And honestly Murray isn't a very likeable character (in terms of watching tennis). Murray's game doesn't do him any favours. I don't enjoy watching Murray play. He's a fantastic player but doesn't have anything really special to his game. He's plays like a better version of Lleyton Hewitt. Add the inevitable BRitish media hype to all of this it's easy to understand why he's so unpopular.
 
On BBC 2 soon, although it shouldn't be anything less than a straight sets victory over this mug.
 
. He's a fantastic player but doesn't have anything really special to his game.

I was listening to an interview with Lleyton hewitt and he reckoned that is Murrays strength. because he doesn't have anything particularly special opponents struggle to know how best to outplay him, he's good at all aspects of the game without having one strength they can target.
 
I was listening to an interview with Lleyton hewitt and he reckoned that is Murrays strength. because he doesn't have anything particularly special opponents struggle to know how best to outplay him, he's good at all aspects of the game without having one strength they can target.

Difference is Hewitt wasn't an all rounder, he was more of a shit nadal. A back of the court player who forces errors.

Murray does this too but their are better players than him at this side of the game. Murray has one of if not the best backhand in tennis and also is one of the best returners in the game. Add to that his first serve which has become one of the best and the fact he is one of the fastest guys on the court and i'm beginning to see quite alot of what some might describe as "special" qualities.

Personally for me it's his intelligence on the court that makes the difference, he is very good at playing against players in a way they don't like to be played against. For that reason you only seem to see the best of Murray when he is playing against the best.

He has a lot of variety to his game and he does have the element of unpredictability which i think makes him a very entertaining player to watch.
 
I was listening to an interview with Lleyton hewitt and he reckoned that is Murrays strength. because he doesn't have anything particularly special opponents struggle to know how best to outplay him, he's good at all aspects of the game without having one strength they can target.

Yep. Thing is lot of the new players are like that. Very standardised games which makes it boring to watch.
 
How can a player with more variety to his game than about 90% of players out there be one of the most boring to watch?

Do you find Nadal brilliant to watch? Roddick? Del Potro?
Hitting a drop shot a couple of times for variation doesn't make you entertaining.

I never said he was the most boring. But yes I enjoy watching Nadal playing more. Roddick's not very good, but can be interesting to watch. Del Potro is still young and learning.
 
Murray's only a young player, he can't be expected to have the sort of variation to his game that more experienced players do. But I like that he's starting to focus on playing winning tennis, and has gotten rid of the patchy shot-selection that hampered him earlier in his career. I remember Brad Gilbert saying that poorly timed/executed drop-shots cost Murray at least a game a set at times. And he has learned when to use the shot, which has made a huge difference.

I'd agree that he doesn't have anything that is out of this world, except his backhand. But he doesn't need to, because most areas of his game are sound(his volleying isn't wonderful, but he doesn't allow himself to be forced to use it that often, particularly under pressure, so it makes no real difference).

His serve is good, although better from left to right, and he's finding all areas of the service box now, in contrast to a few years ago when he had certain go-to-areas, which he peppered relentlessly(which obviously made him predictable).

His physical conditioning seems a lot better, although to borrow from Pat Cash in The Times at the weekend, he does seem to struggle a bit with recovery times. Hopefully that will come the more he works on his fitness.

He's a work in progress, but he has a real chance of kicking on if he keeps working as hard as he obviously is.
 
Hitting a drop shot a couple of times for variation doesn't make you entertaining.

I never said he was the most boring. But yes I enjoy watching Nadal playing more. Roddick's not very good, but can be interesting to watch. Del Potro is still young and learning.

Nadal is all power and running. He is pure physical strengh and determination and consistency. Still i like him slightly better now that he's lost the cutoffs.

Still, i feel you under rate Murrays game, he plays some shots brilliantly and his variety is a level above most, it's above Nadals. He has a good touch, his volleying is under-rated and he's done things that make you laugh.
 
Nadal is all power and running. He is pure physical strengh and determination and consistency. Still i like him slightly better now that he's lost the cutoffs.

Still, i feel you under rate Murrays game, he plays some shots brilliantly and his variety is a level above most, it's above Nadals. He has a good touch, his volleying is under-rated and he's done things that make you laugh.

That's incredibly unfair to Nadal. To do what he does consistently, hit the lines with power and spin, takes a huge amount of technique. If just hitting the ball hard, and being fit were all you had to do to win, there would be a dozen Nadals out there.

While his style might look a little unwieldy at times, you won't find a person in tennis who thinks that all he offers is "power and running". He uses those traits to impose his technique and ability on the other player.
 
Nadal is all power and running. He is pure physical strengh and determination and consistency. Still i like him slightly better now that he's lost the cutoffs.

Still, i feel you under rate Murrays game, he plays some shots brilliantly and his variety is a level above most, it's above Nadals. He has a good touch, his volleying is under-rated and he's done things that make you laugh.

Power and running play a huge part of Nadal's game but he's got a lot more to his game. He's the Ronaldo of tennis. (Federer being the Messi ;))

I'm probably underrating Murray's game though maybe because I've yet to see much of him at his very best.
 
Power and running play a huge part of Nadal's game but he's got a lot more to his game. He's the Ronaldo of tennis. (Federer being the Messi ;))

I'm probably underrating Murray's game though maybe because I've yet to see much of him at his very best.

So you didn’t watch any of the last half of the tennis season :eek:

his back to back masters were pretty excellent. His win over Gasquet (great to watch) at Wimbledon? Nadal at the US? Beating Nadal and Federer back to back and then Federer again aswell as really beating Roddick.

Now I can understand people disliking Murray due to his perceived "attitude" but I always thought the one thing that stood him in good stead was the fact he was a world class tennis player, a very very talented individual. Remember he has only just started to fulfil his physical potential.
 
Nadal is the unfortunate natural conclusion of the way tennis has been going for the past twenty years.

And he's easily the most popular player on the courts.

Now I can understand everyone liking Nadal because I haven't heard him say anything or do anything (apart from the grunting, constant wedgies and cut-offs) that makes me think he isn't a genuinely nice guy and he's humble.

On the other hand as far as watching a player goes to watch a guy basically bludgeon the ball until your opponent can't take anymore isn't really my idea of great tennis.
 
He's the Ronaldo of tennis. (Federer being the Messi ;))

Funny you should say that, was just thinking that this thread is going down a similar road as those myself.

Did anybody watch the Nadal - Rochus game in full, I missed it. Was he moving well?
 
He was doing fairly well. To be fair, Nadal was a head taller than Rochus, who had nothing on Nadal in terms of physical strength.

Should've seen the look on Rochus' face when he won his first game against Nadal. He was stoked.
 
Now I can understand people disliking Murray due to his perceived "attitude" but I always thought the one thing that stood him in good stead was the fact he was a world class tennis player, a very very talented individual. Remember he has only just started to fulfil his physical potential.
You can thank the British media as well. The fact they write so much hype about him, especially early in his career annoys a lot of tennis fans.
 
To be honest Justin the majority of people who are tennis fans like Murray. Must of his detractors are the football fans who decide to follow Wimbledon for 2 weeks and decide Murray is a dour Scottish twat.

But you are right enough about the media, the media are the devil.

As for Murray i think people should reassess their opinions of him. He isn't the same as he was 3 years ago when people decided to despise him. It'll be typical if these same people that are anti-Murray will be regarding him as some sort of British hero when he wins his first major...
 
To be honest Justin the majority of people who are tennis fans like Murray. Must of his detractors are the football fans who decide to follow Wimbledon for 2 weeks and decide Murray is a dour Scottish twat.

...

Agreed FV - and the best thing is Murray could not give a feck about people not liking him ala Henman... Guy is quality
 
Nalbandian going out is a bit of a shock, well the guy is generally a shock anyway. Shame i really like him as a player...

Aye Bazalini, that's the thing about tennis players. You can talk about where they are from but it is only when playing davis cup that he is representing britain. The rest of the year he is representing himself, the fact he is scottish gets him support from some scots who like tennis. The fact he is british gets him support from some people all over britain but as you said he is his own man and he doesn't need support. Infact quite the opposite, whilst Henman was at his best at wimbledon and would thrive on the crowd it is quite apparent that Murray prefers the US and would probably say Wimbledon is the most difficult to deal with. If that is to do with the positive or negative reaction of the crowd it's hard to tell.
 
You will Find FV that Murray said he didn't like Wimbledon already. Anyhow I wish Murray all the best, Its hard to watch the decline of Fed, but its good to have Murray. I don't care what he does in 2009, I'd love to see him do well and win a Slam, but people will remember the late 2000's as having some of the best Male Tennis players ever.. Fed, Nadal, Djorkovc, and Murray are probably the most gifted 4 tennis players holding the top 4 places ever, and waiting in the wings players like Monfis, Del Potro & Gulblis are equal to any of them on their Day...

best Tennis in years - FACT
 
Safin vs Federer. Really looking forward to this one as I reckon their match in the 2005 semi final was the best i've ever seen.
 
Fed - Safin in a couple of days should be awesome.

Rafa at $5 before the tournament was a good bet I think. He was ridiculous against Rochus.
 
Bad luck Tomic, you'll be back when you buff up a bit.

Looks like the Gooch is the only man left flying the Aussie flag...

Also, great to see Jelena Dokic back after a very very turbulent 8 or so years fighting her inner demons (and father).
 
Murray's only a young player, he can't be expected to have the sort of variation to his game that more experienced players do.
Actually the reason Murray is breaking through relatively late in tennis terms is that his game has so much variety and it's taken him until now to work out how to channel his game productively against the very top players. Players such as Nadal or Roddick, who have quite straightforward games and obvious strengths broke through at a younger age as it was easier for them to work out a game plan against the top guys. Federer's game, on the other hand, is similar to Murray's in terms of variety which explains why it took him initially longer than expected to break through.
 
Murray up two sets to love, 6-4 6-2 so far. He's not playing well but when it matters he's pulling it together. Whoever said he doesn't have the variety of shots to be world class is flying in the face of the opinion of the pundits on both channels showing the match here in the UK, but maybe they don't know tennis as well as the Caftards, eh.


Murray wins 6-4 6-2 6-2.
 
To be honest Justin the majority of people who are tennis fans like Murray. Must of his detractors are the football fans who decide to follow Wimbledon for 2 weeks and decide Murray is a dour Scottish twat.

But you are right enough about the media, the media are the devil.

As for Murray i think people should reassess their opinions of him. He isn't the same as he was 3 years ago when people decided to despise him. It'll be typical if these same people that are anti-Murray will be regarding him as some sort of British hero when he wins his first major...

Plenty of us don't like him as a bloke, but think highly of him as a player. And for whatever it's worth, I'm a genuine tennis fan, and follow it far more throughout the season than most. I don't like his attitude, but that doesn't blinker my view of him as a player. I never thought he'd be able to play as he has done the last few months, and he deserves a lot of credit for raising his game.

Actually the reason Murray is breaking through relatively late in tennis terms is that his game has so much variety and it's taken him until now to work out how to channel his game productively against the very top players. Players such as Nadal or Roddick, who have quite straightforward games and obvious strengths broke through at a younger age as it was easier for them to work out a game plan against the top guys. Federer's game, on the other hand, is similar to Murray's in terms of variety which explains why it took him initially longer than expected to break through.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. He's a good player(better than I previously thought(and said), to be fair to him. But, IMO, his strength is forcing opponents to play to his strengths, and then punishing them.

Murray up two sets to love, 6-4 6-2 so far. He's not playing well but when it matters he's pulling it together. Whoever said he doesn't have the variety of shots to be world class is flying in the face of the opinion of the pundits on both channels showing the match here in the UK, but maybe they don't know tennis as well as the Caftards, eh.

Murray wins 6-4 6-2 6-2.

Personally, I don't think he has the variety of some of the other top players, and I've read plenty of opinion that would agree with that. But all that proves is that even pundits are divided on the issue. But I would never say that you have to have huge variety to your game to be 'world class'. IMO, Murray's proof of that. But obviously plenty of people will disagree.
 
Personally, I don't think he has the variety of some of the other top players, and I've read plenty of opinion that would agree with that. But all that proves is that even pundits are divided on the issue. But I would never say that you have to have huge variety to your game to be 'world class'. IMO, Murray's proof of that. But obviously plenty of people will disagree.
Have these opinions been proffered recently? I would doubt it. His variety has increased exponentially in the last three months or so, that's what's been being said or written in the assessments I come across right now. He really is 'yong and lernin' and should be given credit for that, imo.