Aussie Tennis Open

I'm quite confused as to your definition of variety to be honest.

He varies where he puts his serves. He comes volleys on occasion, he changes up during points from flat to slice on the back side, he uses drop shots, he deliberately hits short balls to bring players into the net in order to pass.

Today he played well within himself and only showed a few glimpses of what he is capable of.

Brophs you don't like him, you don't want to see him do well and you think he lacks variety and isn't a good player to watch. You must think it's a miracle he's in the top 10 never mind challenging the top 3!
 
brophs said:
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.
Click to expand...

horselesspaul said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have given him credit-see above for an example. And I'm continuing to do so.

To be entirely honest, I don't know when I last read those opinions, but I have read them, from Pat Cash, Brad Gilbert, and McEnroe. But perhaps you may be right, they may not have been in the last three months. But I'm not convinced a player changes his style in three months or so. But, again, I may be wrong.

FranklyVulgar said:
I'm quite confused as to your definition of variety to be honest.

He varies where he puts his serves. He comes volleys on occasion, he changes up during points from flat to slice on the back side, he uses drop shots, he deliberately hits short balls to bring players into the net in order to pass.

Today he played well within himself and only showed a few glimpses of what he is capable of.

Brophs you don't like him, you don't want to see him do well and you think he lacks variety and isn't a good player to watch. You must think it's a miracle he's in the top 10 never mind challenging the top 3!
Click to expand...

I think he has less variety than other players on the circuit, yes. But that's not to say he has none. Every player does the things you mentioned to some extent, but the players who have a great variety to their game do it far more often than Murray does, IMO. And things like shortening the angles, or throwing in a serve volley to keep the other player honest aren't things you see enough from him, again, IMO.

As for the rest of the bolded part, I want other players to win ahead of him, yeah. But I would also give him due respect if he does, as the guy holding the cup at the end of the week is invariably the one who deserves it. But nowhere have I said he's "not a good player to watch". That bit you made up all by yourself. I enjoy watching him, particularly against a strong opponent. Do I like watching certain other players more? Yes, but that's a personal preference, and certainly not one I can be criticised for.

To be honest, I'm going to stop now, since we clearly aren't going to agree, and we seem to be going round in circles a bit.
 
McEnroe is one of the people who has been an avid supporter of Murray from the start. He is of the opinion that Murray has everything in his game to win a slam and is of the opinion that it is more when and not if. Borg said the same things.

The point McEnroe made was that he needs to be more aggressive and i think Murray has shown that he can be. Federer was right when he said a year or so ago that Murray waited for his oponents to make mistakes and he was correct and Murray can still do that but to beat Nadal the way he did at the US and Federer the way he has the last 4 or 5 times (in a row) he has done so with aggressive tennis.

Hes been brilliant for sinse wimbledon (bar the olympics) and if you had watched him beat top player after top player in that time you would surely hold him in a slightly higher regard.
 
FranklyVulgar said:
McEnroe is one of the people who has been an avid supporter of Murray from the start. He is of the opinion that Murray has everything in his game to win a slam and is of the opinion that it is more when and not if. Borg said the same things.

The point McEnroe made was that he needs to be more aggressive and i think Murray has shown that he can be. Federer was right when he said a year or so ago that Murray waited for his oponents to make mistakes and he was correct and Murray can still do that but to beat Nadal the way he did at the US and Federer the way he has the last 4 or 5 times (in a row) he has done so with aggressive tennis.

Hes been brilliant for sinse wimbledon (bar the olympics) and if you had watched him beat top player after top player in that time you would surely hold him in a slightly higher regard.
Click to expand...

What regard do you want me to hold him in though? I have already said that I think he's a world class player. I've already said he's become a far better player than I would have thought he'd become.

So what am I supposed to say? That he's the best player in the world? He's not. He's beaten the best over the last number of months. But always in second-rate tournaments. He has to win slams to be considered the best. And again, as I said above, I think he likely will win a slam, and sooner rather than later.

So, once and for all, my opinion of Murray is that he's a bloody good player, who has weaknesses, like every player. I mention variety as a weakness(which you don't agree with), as others in the game have. But nowhere have I said it makes him a bad player(or even stops him from being a great one).

The fact is, we're discussing him, and those are my opinions of his weaknesses. Of course I could be wrong, I was about how good he would become. But pointing them out is allowed, as it would be if I said the about Federer(backhand), or Nadal(serve, and not coming to net to close out points).
 
I do see where you are coming from, and i think he has been the best player in the world in recent months but that doesnt make him the best. He could go onto be a number 1 one day but with the standard of tennis that is so hard to do. I personally don't think we'll see another player stay at the top the way feds did. Nadal wont last in my opinion and it'll bounce around a bit more than it has done.

I don't disagree with you, i just see Murray as being a player with great variety to his game. When he first came on the scene that was why people made such a big deal because he was making shots and playing cutely. He doesnt hit the ball hard every time, he is always changing it up, slowing it down then speeding it up.

He isn't in my opinion the most gifted player on the tour no doubt about that but for my money he is certainly one of the most inteligent players on the tour.
 
FranklyVulgar said:
I do see where you are coming from, and i think he has been the best player in the world in recent months but that doesnt make him the best. He could go onto be a number 1 one day but with the standard of tennis that is so hard to do. I personally don't think we'll see another player stay at the top the way feds did. Nadal wont last in my opinion and it'll bounce around a bit more than it has done.

I don't disagree with you, i just see Murray as being a player with great variety to his game. When he first came on the scene that was why people made such a big deal because he was making shots and playing cutely. He doesnt hit the ball hard every time, he is always changing it up, slowing it down then speeding it up.

He isn't in my opinion the most gifted player on the tour no doubt about that but for my money he is certainly one of the most inteligent players on the tour.
Click to expand...

I hope you're proven right, as it would mean the tour will be even more competitive in future.
 
Safin vs Federer tomorrow morning. First proper match of this tournament.
 
brophs said:
I think he has less variety than other players on the circuit, yes. But that's not to say he has none.
Click to expand...

You're simply wrong on this. Say what you like about his personality (although I can't see the point as you don't know him personally) - he does give straight-talking interviews these days. Interviewed on Sportsweek last week, he spoke at length about how players with his style of game, and he specifically mentioned that he meant those with an extra high degree of variety, take longer to reach their potential as they have to go through more than most players before working out how to impose their game effectively on others. He now feels he has worked out how to do this.

I also remember Tim Henman saying EXACTLY the same thing about Murray's game earlier this year (cue the ignorant Henman-bashing...).
 
brophs said:
So what am I supposed to say? That he's the best player in the world? He's not. He's beaten the best over the last number of months. But always in second-rate tournaments. .
Click to expand...

Again, that is simply not true. If you'd heard Nadal's press conference earlier this week, you'd have heard him asked about whether Murray's victories over the top 3 players in recent months count. As Nadal then pointed out, they do count as they came in Masters Series events, and the end of year Masters Cup, accepted by most of the pros as the biggest non-slam event. So, certainly not 'second rate tournaments'. Do you recall Murray v. Federer at the Masters Cup? He didn't even need to win to get through the round robin stages, Federer really did need to win, and he still won. How you can belittle that victory, or his immense win over Rafael Nadal in that epic US Open semi final, is beyond me.
 
Andy can take the title, no doubt about that. He's absolutely on top form this season and he proved he's capable of beating anyone on hard. He will reach semis easily and there he meets Nadal... no problem for Andy, but if he wants to be on his top form in final, he must beat Rafa in straight easy sets :) Then in final he'll beat anyone!
 
BaldwinLegend said:
You're simply wrong on this. Say what you like about his personality (although I can't see the point as you don't know him personally) - he does give straight-talking interviews these days. Interviewed on Sportsweek last week, he spoke at length about how players with his style of game, and he specifically mentioned that he meant those with an extra high degree of variety, take longer to reach their potential as they have to go through more than most players before working out how to impose their game effectively on others. He now feels he has worked out how to do this.

I also remember Tim Henman saying EXACTLY the same thing about Murray's game earlier this year (cue the ignorant Henman-bashing...).
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree. I've said everything I can on this, and since there are those who obviously disagree, so be it.

And as for the personality issue, of course I don't know him. Quite clearly I'm saying the guy I see being interviewed etc, isn't one I have particularly warmed to. I personally don't think that blinkers my opinion of how good a player he is, you may disagree.

As I said above, I didn't think he had it in him to be a top player. He's changed my opinion(clearly, I had to, I was wrong) But I haven't grown to like his personality regardless of that. But that doesn't matter, as the comment on him as a guy only explains why I'd prefer to see someone else win it, not as some sort of moral judgement.

Like everyone on here, I have my favourites. And he's not among them. Doesn't mean I don't like watching the guy play tennis though.

BaldwinLegend said:
Again, that is simply not true. If you'd heard Nadal's press conference earlier this week, you'd have heard him asked about whether Murray's victories over the top 3 players in recent months count. As Nadal then pointed out, they do count as they came in Masters Series events, and the end of year Masters Cup, accepted by most of the pros as the biggest non-slam event. So, certainly not 'second rate tournaments'. Do you recall Murray v. Federer at the Masters Cup? He didn't even need to win to get through the round robin stages, Federer really did need to win, and he still won. How you can belittle that victory, or his immense win over Rafael Nadal in that epic US Open semi final, is beyond me.
Click to expand...

No, fair enough, I was being slightly glib when I mentioned them being second-rate tournaments, I just meant they are below the importance of a slam. I'm not trying to say they weren't important victories, just that they aren't equivalent to a victory in a Grand Slam, no matter how much spin is put on it. Clearly, to beat Federer/Nadal anywhere means you are doing something right(and I'm not for one second belittling his victory against Nadal in the US Open-it was genuinely the first time I wanted him to win a match like that because of the aggression he showed on the court).

But I stand by what I said. To be the best, you beat the best when it really matters-the four slams. Those are the tournaments the players prepare themselves for, with everything else being secondary. And while Murray has done that to a point, he hasn't been able to take that final leap. Yet. As I said above, I expect him to do so, but until he does, he can't be regarded as beingin the very top bracket, because after all, the proof is in the pudding.
 
I like Murray, he's come on leaps on bounds in the last 6 months or so and he's got that arrogant/confidence to him that I think is needed to be successful in sport these days and is certainly equipped to win a major slam.
 
Trippin_Stoned said:
I like Murray, he's come on leaps on bounds in the last 6 months or so and he's got that arrogant/confidence to him that I think is needed to be successful in sport these days and is certainly equipped to win a major slam.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Murray has the perfect personality to succeed in tennis. It is an individual sport and Murray has shown from the start that he is an individual. I've never had a problem with his attitude or personality, he is very different to Henman and Greg and for me that's a refreshing change. People forget how much of an arse Federer could be before he became such the "gentleman" with his rediculous white coat at wimbledon etc..

Murray sacked Brad Gilbert and the whole world of tennis was breathing down his neck but it was his decision and it's proven to be a very smart one, he takes himself seriously and knows what he can achieve and hasn't allowed the hype, good or bad to affect him at all.

The last match before this open he was playing a bit flat and then a call from the judge really annoyed him and he had a few words and started just crushing every ball. I think maybe he is too calm these days, sometimes when he is annoyed and plays with focused aggression he is a joy to watch.
 
Ivanovic has lost it mentally. Shes a really resilient character though so hopefully she will be back soon.

Anyone see the 'brawl' between the Serbs and Bosnians. Shocking - in that it was a pathetic brawl with just chairs being thrown at each other..
 
Ivanovic's outfit was weird as feck. Made one boob look much larger than the other.

I would also like to do rude things to Wozniacki. Did she lose in the end?
 
uae said:
Ivanovic's outfit was weird as feck. Made one boob look much larger than the other.

I would also like to do rude things to Wozniacki. Did she lose in the end?
Click to expand...
It was trying to make a public appearance.

Wozniacki lost the third set without much resistance.
 
http://www.skysports.com/tennis/tournaments/story/0,25174,15663_4837991,00.html

Marat Safin claims he will not return to the Australian Open following his third round defeat to Roger Federer on Friday.

The mercurial Muscovite suggested retirement is on the agenda after going down 6-3 6-2 7-6 to his old foe, with whom he had some memorable matches down the years.

Safin lost to the Swiss legend in straight sets in the 2004 final in Melbourne, but exacted revenge a year later when he won an epic semi-final battle 9-7 in the fifth set before going on to lift his second Grand Slam title.

However, just days before his 29th birthday, Safin implied the end was near as he reflected on his tussles with Federer.

"I had some ups and downs here," he said. "One disappointment. Another great year. One final against Roger. And then one title I took here beating also Roger and (Lleyton) Hewitt.

"So I've been playing some great tennis. So just the whole thing, the whole setup. The beautiful city, great people.

"It's always nice to come here every year, year after year. Unfortunately, I doubt it's going to ever happen again.

"I've been already too many years. I want to change and do something else. I'm ready for that.

"It's been a nice trip. It's enough."
Greatest ever

Safin paid tribute to Federer, who won 10 of their 12 clashes over the years.

"But anyway, I lost today probably to the better player, one of the greatest ones in the history of tennis," he added.

"I really hope for him to be so I can tell the story to my kids that I played with him. I think it's a nice story.

"He's the most complete tennis player in the history of tennis, that's for sure. With all due respects to (Andre) Agassi and (Pete) Sampras and the rest of the gang. But I never felt so uncomfortable against any of the players before.

"Unfortunately, I couldn't do better than that, three sets. It's just a sad story. It's not for me. I prefer to leave this way, quietly, nice, with a great match.
Click to expand...

Safin seems to have either retired, or has announced that he will at the end of the season. He's an emotional man, that's for sure. Nuttier than a bag full of squirrel shit, but entertaining nonetheless.
 
surf said:
Safin's annhilation of Sampras in the US Open final was unforgettable. He was more talented than Hewitt or Roddick but never had the right mentality to fulfil his potential.
Click to expand...
Ironic considering he criticised his sister for the same thing
 
Murray played well earlier and dominated towards the end, the first set was good to watch before Melzer faded. Too many unforced errors to compete with Murray after the way he played at times.

Fernando Verdasco is next up for him in the fourth round.
 
horselesspaul said:
And what do you think of her tennis playing?
Click to expand...

Is in terrible form, nervous/shaky play against inferior players is leading to lots of errors on the court.

She is still very good to look at though, is she not, which is what really matters! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.