3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jul 7, 2017 22:26:39 GMT
He's never an easy watch. No - I'll miss Federer's grace when he bows out. I feel I ought to like Murray but just can't - especially with the mandrill cry of triumph thing he does at the end. |
|
5,058 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 7, 2017 23:04:02 GMT
Just thinking and saw the end of Andy win fairly easily, I think he will win the championship again, if not him it will be Novak. Federer is too old and Nadal has had injuries. All 4 are great players for different reasons. Andy looked really exhausted at times, but then he often does. He's never an easy watch. I agree he does look exhausted a lot of the time, but boy can he pull off a millimetre perfect winner. i would say a spotsman's prime is between 27 - 32, you see some footballers go on to 35 but that's not the norm and they only get there, if they looked after themselves when they are young and lucky to remain injury free, even something relaxed like golf, you generally don't get champions over 40, even though fitness isn't required here, your muscles in prime condition are and older you get they start to waste. Tennis you need both these attributes and you need to be fitter than a soccer player. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 7, 2017 23:10:35 GMT
Andy looked really exhausted at times, but then he often does. He's never an easy watch. I agree he does look exhausted a lot of the time, but boy can he pull off a millimetre perfect winner. i would say a spotsman's prime is between 27 - 32, you see some footballers go on to 35 but that's not the norm and they only get there, if they looked after themselves when they are young and lucky to remain injury free, even something relaxed like golf, you generally don't get champions over 40, even though fitness isn't required here, your muscles in prime condition are and older you get they start to waste. Tennis you need both these attributes and you need to be fitter than a soccer player. I agree, but I still don't think Andy will be remembered as as great as Roger, Rafa and Novak at their prime, unless he wins the next eight Grand Slams. We won't hear the end of him in Britain but that's usual as it's so rare over here. Don't get me wrong, he's a very good tennis player, but I wouldn't class him as a great yet. That probably sounds harsh and I really don't mean it to. |
|
736 posts
|
Post by dippy on Jul 8, 2017 1:04:58 GMT
No - I'll miss Federer's grace when he bows out. I feel I ought to like Murray but just can't - especially with the mandrill cry of triumph thing he does at the end. Feel the same but I'm biased because I'm Swiss, but I didn't mind Tim Henman though. My mum calls Murray a Brüllaffe which is a howler monkey. |
|
5,058 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 8, 2017 1:11:47 GMT
Mmmmmm it is Hearst, but I do u dear stand what you mean.
Obviously Roger, Rafa and Nova are brilliant players they have done the Grand Slam, nothing can top that, all 3 are excellent players and history with recognise that accordingly.
But let's call it as it is though, Andy will be remembered as a great not for his tennis, but for his nationality and he ended a drought of British people to win a slam and let's not forget his 2 Olympic gold medals too (he competed in Rio, when others wouldn't, hello Rory McIIroy, stating SARS, or similar) However it is great Andy has achieved what he has, with only modest beginnings, with his lovely mum coaching him and not some millionaire privileged public school boy as per usual - but what lets Andy down in my book and that is when he wins BBC personality of the year and he cannot be bothered to come to the studio and receive his great achievement, this award could be the greatest as it is bestowed by the British public and rather opts to stay in Miami, when in 48 hours he can come, collect and return and spend some of it asleep, when he turns left.
But when all said and done is that Andy is British and a champion and both those are a matter of fact, and will be remembered in history, when fans are sitting on Murray Mount.
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 8, 2017 1:32:12 GMT
They've already stopped calling it that really. It will always be Henman Hill. I tried for Edmund 'ill yesterday, to no avail.
There is no denying Andy is fantastic for the sport in the UK and I hope that will mean in future we can produce players of our own of the levels of Federer/Nadal.
I agree that it would be nice if Andy collected his Sports Personality ('contradiction in terms' to quote Patsy Stone) awards in person.
Judy Murray was a genius for going on Strictly; it did get people on her side and more importantly Andy's.
I'm so tired that this is not a structured argument and there is not beginning or end. Please read each paragraph individually.
|
|
5,058 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 8, 2017 2:54:43 GMT
Yeah I am so tired, but it's too hot to sleep, hence posting messages at 4am.
It wasn't too long ago maybe 20 years, that the second week of Wimbledon would symbolise every British player gone home, that changed with Tim Henman, who although never a champion had a great finesse about his game and he was easy to watch, unlike Sampras who was just a machine.
|
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Jul 8, 2017 4:10:54 GMT
Murray is in Miami for his pre Australian Open training block so a disruption to that is unhelpful. Given his success I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what is best for his career.
Notably he did attend in 2015 when he was also part of team of the year.
Yes in terms of achievements he's the weakest part of the big 4 but his consistency, hard work and success under pressure are very impressive.
3 slams, 2 Olympic Golds and a Davis Cup is pretty impressive and for lesser records like titles won, most grand slam semi finals reached he's much further up the list than you'd expect. In an era without 3 of the greatest players of all time he would have won a hell of a lot more.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 8, 2017 9:05:07 GMT
I agree he does look exhausted a lot of the time, but boy can he pull off a millimetre perfect winner. i would say a spotsman's prime is between 27 - 32, you see some footballers go on to 35 but that's not the norm and they only get there, if they looked after themselves when they are young and lucky to remain injury free, even something relaxed like golf, you generally don't get champions over 40, even though fitness isn't required here, your muscles in prime condition are and older you get they start to waste. Tennis you need both these attributes and you need to be fitter than a soccer player. I agree, but I still don't think Andy will be remembered as as great as Roger, Rafa and Novak at their prime, unless he wins the next eight Grand Slams. We won't hear the end of him in Britain but that's usual as it's so rare over here. Don't get me wrong, he's a very good tennis player, but I wouldn't class him as a great yet. That probably sounds harsh and I really don't mean it to. Great discussion point. How many slams do you need to get to the great barrier? Murray is borderline and as he has won his three in an era when three of the very greatest players have played. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 8, 2017 9:16:47 GMT
But let's call it as it is though, Andy will be remembered as a great not for his tennis, but for his nationality Don't often disagree with you Phantom but that is wildly wrong, putting it down to you posting in the middle of the night. But winning three grand slams when three of the greatest ever players are his generation. Murray is a brilliant tennis player |
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jul 8, 2017 9:57:44 GMT
i would say a spotsman's prime is between 27 - 32, you see some footballers go on to 35 but that's not the norm and they only get there, if they looked after themselves when they are young and lucky to remain injury free, even something relaxed like golf, you generally don't get champions over 40, even though fitness isn't required here, your muscles in prime condition are and older you get they start to waste. Tennis you need both these attributes and you need to be fitter than a soccer player. That's one reason why I love equestrianism: riders can keep going into their 50s or 60s & still be very successful. For instance Nick Skelton winning Olympic showjumping gold age 58 last year & Andrew Nicholson winning Badminton at his 36th attempt age 56 this year. I think swimming is probably the most depressing sport age-wise. Most swimmers seem to be past their best by their mid to late 20s. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 8, 2017 11:23:08 GMT
I agree, but I still don't think Andy will be remembered as as great as Roger, Rafa and Novak at their prime, unless he wins the next eight Grand Slams. We won't hear the end of him in Britain but that's usual as it's so rare over here. Don't get me wrong, he's a very good tennis player, but I wouldn't class him as a great yet. That probably sounds harsh and I really don't mean it to. Great discussion point. How many slams do you need to get to the great barrier? Murray is borderline and as he has won his three in an era when three of the very greatest players have played. I don't know and there is no right or wrong answer. I would say six on more than one surface (preferably three). |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 8, 2017 14:31:06 GMT
Great discussion point. How many slams do you need to get to the great barrier? Murray is borderline and as he has won his three in an era when three of the very greatest players have played. I don't know and there is no right or wrong answer. I would say six on more than one surface (preferably three). Wow, I always thought my great line was high in any sport classic pub conversation. But that is exceptionally high.
Only 22 men ever won at least six slams. Three surfaces means you need to have won in Paris. Of those 22 only 12 won the French Open.
You saying Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg and Becker are not great?
And then you have made no concession that Murray has played in an era with three of the greatest ever. I reckon his three is comparable to (at least) six in another era.
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 8, 2017 15:26:16 GMT
I don't agree that today's players are the best ever - Sampras, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, etc. etc are equally great I think.
I'm of the not so 'great' camp when describing Murray. He's not feared for anything. I think you need something, be it a serve, forehand, backhand, athleticism, return, consistency, inconsistency(! I think I mean unpredictability here, like McEnroe or Becker) or something that other players genuinely fear to be truly great. I honestly don't think he brings the top players to a quivering jelly at the thought of facing him.
I keep seeing large groups of empty seats. Annoying.
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 8, 2017 15:32:11 GMT
I don't know and there is no right or wrong answer. I would say six on more than one surface (preferably three). Wow, I always thought my great line was high in any sport classic pub conversation. But that is exceptionally high.
Only 22 men ever won at least six slams. Three surfaces means you need to have won in Paris. Of those 22 only 12 won the French Open.
You saying Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg and Becker are not great?
And then you have made no concession that Murray has played in an era with three of the greatest ever. I reckon his three is comparable to (at least) six in another era.
I deliberately said there is no right or wrong answer to avoid a conversation like this. You clearly have your opinion and that's great I'm not going to answer to your points though, sorry. |
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 8, 2017 16:06:27 GMT
Why why why if you have a ticket for centre court or court one would you be looking at your phone and not the players? Court 1 at the moment - hundreds of empty seats and the ones with people in are not even watching. Funny old world.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 8, 2017 16:22:13 GMT
Wow, I always thought my great line was high in any sport classic pub conversation. But that is exceptionally high.
Only 22 men ever won at least six slams. Three surfaces means you need to have won in Paris. Of those 22 only 12 won the French Open.
You saying Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg and Becker are not great?
And then you have made no concession that Murray has played in an era with three of the greatest ever. I reckon his three is comparable to (at least) six in another era.
I deliberately said there is no right or wrong answer to avoid a conversation like this. You clearly have your opinion and that's great I'm not going to answer to your points though, sorry. Agreed, why the sporting greatest debate has been happening over a beer for years |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 8, 2017 16:24:46 GMT
I don't agree that today's players are the best ever - Sampras, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, etc. etc are equally great I think. I'm of the not so 'great' camp when describing Murray. He's not feared for anything. I think you need something, be it a serve, forehand, backhand, athleticism, return, consistency, inconsistency(! I think I mean unpredictability here, like McEnroe or Becker) or something that other players genuinely fear to be truly great. I honestly don't think he brings the top players to a quivering jelly at the thought of facing him. I keep seeing large groups of empty seats. Annoying. His return stats are better than Nadal, hard task master you are |
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 8, 2017 16:27:39 GMT
His return stats are better than Nadal, hard task master you are ....but Nadal's serve and backhand are better (I'm guessing here...not looking at stats, life's too short lol!) Anyway, whatever Murray's return stats, he's not in Connors' league. Now there was a returner to make you tremble into your Nikes! |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 8, 2017 16:34:48 GMT
His return stats are better than Nadal, hard task master you are ....but Nadal's serve and backhand are better (I'm guessing here...not looking at stats, life's too short lol!) Anyway, whatever Murray's return stats, he's not in Connors' league. Now there was a returner to make you tremble into your Nikes! We were talking about Murray though and his strengths. I think Nadal is the best ever. Took athleticism to new levels. His wrist action to give the amount of top spin on his forehand are phenomenal and never been seen before. Love revolutions in sport me. And he became the best when the previous best ever was in his pomp. Yeah I reckon Nadal scores higher than most on most of your criteria |
|
5,058 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 8, 2017 18:19:31 GMT
But let's call it as it is though, Andy will be remembered as a great not for his tennis, but for his nationality Don't often disagree with you Phantom but that is wildly wrong, putting it down to you posting in the middle of the night. But winning three grand slams when three of the greatest ever players are his generation. Murray is a brilliant tennis player I like Andy and think he is brilliant, not a Scottish thing, merely mean 'nationality' as first British player to win since 1938. |
|
5,058 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 8, 2017 18:24:33 GMT
I don't agree that today's players are the best ever - Sampras, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, etc. etc are equally great I think. I'm of the not so 'great' camp when describing Murray. He's not feared for anything. I think you need something, be it a serve, forehand, backhand, athleticism, return, consistency, inconsistency(! I think I mean unpredictability here, like McEnroe or Becker) or something that other players genuinely fear to be truly great. I honestly don't think he brings the top players to a quivering jelly at the thought of facing him. I keep seeing large groups of empty seats. Annoying. I don't agree with Becker is personality is more famous than his tennis. Borg yes is great, but also a complete bore to watch, just like Sampras. Edberg, Connors and McEnroe were pure class and all had a certain finesse. |
|
4,029 posts
|
Wimbledon
Jul 8, 2017 18:28:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by Dawnstar on Jul 8, 2017 18:28:44 GMT
Most swimmers seem to be past their best by their mid to late 20s. Dancers too, alas. I don't know. Most of the Royal Ballet stars seem to dance till mid-30s or later (much later if it's Alessandra Ferri!). |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Jul 8, 2017 18:29:12 GMT
Don't often disagree with you Phantom but that is wildly wrong, putting it down to you posting in the middle of the night. But winning three grand slams when three of the greatest ever players are his generation. Murray is a brilliant tennis player I like Andy and think he is brilliant, not a Scottish thing, merely mean 'nationality' as first British player to win since 1938. *British male  |
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Jul 8, 2017 19:02:08 GMT
I don't agree with Becker is personality is more famous than his tennis. Becker for me deserves the title 'great' if for nothing else winning Wimbledon, unseeded, at 17 in the modern era. I doubt we'll see that again in our lifetime. |
|
