Murray in Form

Locky said:
Doesnt matter whats on wiki.

He may of said it making a joke, but deep down he hates us ;)
Click to expand...

And you know this because? :p

He is good enough to win Wimbledon but I don't think he will win it. Too much pressure on him in the later rounds I would imagine. Same problem with Henman that the pressure just got too much, although I think Murray is better than what Henman was.
 
I find him dull and emotionless. I hope he doesn't win I can't stand listening to the bloke. He has zero personality.

I'm as likely to shout for him as the scots would shout for us in the world cup.
 
uber soldat said:
Not saying a lot TBH lol
Click to expand...

Number 4 player in the world and a consistent top 10 player for a long time. You are obviously a typical once a year Wimbledon watcher. Murray is number 3 in the world (at 21 I might add) continually improving and beating 1 and 2 in the world. He will will multiple Grand Slams, mark my words. Brits are so goddamn negative.
 
To the OP Murray is definitely good enough to win wimbledon. It probably is his best chance so far but only because he has improved so much not because federer might be tired (although nadal's injury is no bad thing!). Don't know why there is murray hate - he always treats the fans very well.
 
Christo said:
Number 4 player in the world and a consistent top 10 player for a long time. You are obviously a typical once a year Wimbledon watcher. Murray is number 3 in the world (at 21 I might add) continually improving and beating 1 and 2 in the world. He will will multiple Grand Slams, mark my words. Brits are so goddamn negative.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find having just watched the French open and then Queens that im not a "once a year Wimbledon watcher" as you put it, Henman won nothing, and failed at what should have been his best event Wimbledon usually in the quarter final stages.You're trying to tell me thats success? You obviously have very low standards :p
 
uber soldat said:
Not saying a lot TBH lol
Click to expand...

Thats a bit harsh on a player of Henmans class, he was never the best in the world but was consistently in the top ten one a decent number of titles and had a pretty decent record in the Grand Slams. Just because he lacked the extra 5% to step up into the very top braket alongside all time greats like Samprass and Agassi doesn't make him a terrible tennis player.

Murray is definately a better player and I'm sure he'll win a Grand Slam or two before he retires.
 
Duke said:
Roger is a top player but has little personality or passion on court (and looks so fake and over the top when he wins!) compared to Nadal, Roddick, etc.
Click to expand...

You see that's why I like him. He has a nice way about him, a gentleman, and a graceful player. Diverse and concentrates and modifies his game to suit his opponent. He's not the most powerful or the fastest round the court, but he's by far once of the best all round players. He reminds me of Sampras in terms of style of play and gentlemanly way about him. He's just focused on the game rather than showboats.
 
Murray has the quality to be able to win Wimbledon (although something like the US Open might be a more realistic prospect as it suits his game better) but whether it will be this year or not isn't something I'd care to try and predict. The top five to ten players in the mens rankings are all very good and there is huge strength in depth in there so it's never going to be an easy task.

I obviously hope he does win one of the Grand Slam at least but I'd wait until the end of his career before attempting to label him as a great or judge his relative success compared against his talent.
 
uber soldat said:
I think you'll find having just watched the French open and then Queens that im not a "once a year Wimbledon watcher" as you put it, Henman won nothing, and failed at what should have been his best event Wimbledon usually in the quarter final stages.You're trying to tell me thats success? You obviously have very low standards :p
Click to expand...

Id say he'll probably be more of a 'success' than you.;) He was a bloody good player who just wasnt good enough to break into the top 4/win a grand slam.
 
Of course Andy Murray has a chance of winning Wimbledon. Anyone who's watched him a lot recently (as I have) will have noticed the huge improvements in his game over the past year. His first serve is one of the best on tour, he's got the 2nd best statistics for returns in the world (only behind Nadal), he's got a great range of shots, he's probably the best defensive player on tour, and his stamina (always a weak spot) has improved immensely over the past 2 years. He reached the final of the US Open and has played and beaten the best in the world. Whether he'll win it is another matter, Federer is awesome on grass and if Nadal's knee holds up he'll be right up there. I predict at least a semi-final place for him (I think Nadal will be in his half of the draw).

As for the people saying Henman was rubbish, let me ask you a question. When was the last time any of you were ranked 4th in the world in something?
 
So he won Queens??..does this mean that the british media frenzy of him winning Wimbledon will start in earnest??:rolleyes:

Saying that he had a pretty easy route to winning it though...no Nadal or Federer to really test him so i didnt expect anything less than Murray winning...

As for him winning Wimbledon??..he definitely has a chance but i think against Federer and co he will struggle but i wouldnt be surprised to see him in the final as hes very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom