Wimbledon

desires said:
Makes you realise how rubbish Henman was LOL
Click to expand...

A little harsh. However, Murray surpassed Henman's achievements many years ago. Even before he won the US Open or Wimbledon, Murray's record in reaching the finals of major events and winning ATP Tour titles was way ahead of any British player in the open era. Henman was a talented player but you have to question his hunger and desire to get to the top of the game and the sacrifices that entails. He had a decent, but unremarkable career and in some ways can be categorised amongst the rest of the middle class British under achievers. Nice bloke too and has supported Murray throughout.
 
Davey_Pitch said:
I think Tim was just unlucky to be around in an era that had one of the best grass court players of all time in Pete Sampras.
Click to expand...

That's possibly a slightly poor excuse imo. Murray is also in an era of a 7 times grass court Wimbledon champion with Federer, and then there's Nadal and Djokovic. If you're champion material, you'll find a way through.
 
Merlin5 said:
That's possibly a slightly poor excuse imo. Murray is also in an era of a 7 times grass court Wimbledon champion with Federer, and then there's Nadal and Djokovic. If you're champion material, you'll find a way through.
Click to expand...

In terms of timings Henman's peak was while Sampras was still dominant on grass which then segued into Federer's rise. The point being made though is principally that calling Henman poor is simply wrong - he wasn't on the same level as the best of his era (whether desire, ability, whatever) but he was a damn good player and that shouldn't be dismissed just because there are others who are better.

Henman's ability was respected by a number of his peers, if my memory isn't failing Pete Sampras recognised his skill and was vocal about it on more than one occasion.
 
Merlin5 said:
That's possibly a slightly poor excuse imo. Murray is also in an era of a 7 times grass court Wimbledon champion with Federer, and then there's Nadal and Djokovic. If you're champion material, you'll find a way through.
Click to expand...
Not really. Andy Roddick was an incredible player, no one would deny that, yet he never won Wimbledon as he came up against a peak Roger Federer 3 times in the final. Henman's best surface was grass, so that was always likely to mean Wimbledon would be his best tournament, and every time he lost in the semi-final, he lost to the man who would go on to win the tournament (Sampras x2, Hewitt, and Ivanisevic). There is no shame in that.
 
Now I understand why things were so intense with Judy all these years. The parents put all their life savings into Andrew. They were talking about this on Sky News over 30 minutes ago. That and all these people expecting to be the next Andy Murray.
 
Henman was a good player, it's just Murray is much better. There's no shame in that. You have to give both of them credit given the dire state of tennis in this country - I caught the tale end of Jeremy Bates career and tbh things haven't really got any better since then.

Henman was a decent player that thrived on grass but Murray has a legit chance of winning 3/4 slams on the reg now (and the French will become more open once Nadal's knees go for the last time) and a #1 ranking isn't beyond him either as Novak is his main competition and the other two are past their best.
 
Federer has dropped to number 5 in the world now, David Ferrer moves up to 3rd. Nadal moves up to 4th now in the rankings.

Slowly but surely Federer is dropping down the rankings now, dont think he will be number one again and i cant see him lasting very long against the likes of Nadal, if he can sort his dodgy knees out, Novak who is on another planet...well he was in the Wimbledon final lol. And there is Murray who is slowly hitting his peak and could be the next number 1 in the world.
 
Last edited:
Ferrer is 3rd - god knows how!

I think Federer needs to assess his position after this US Open; it's his best/last chance at winning another Grand Slam.
 
Davey_Pitch said:
Llendl was a great clay court player, and now that Murray has 2 majors including Wimbledon, maybe they'll spend more time working on his clay game. I still think Novak and obviously Nadal are way ahead of him on clay, but considering the way his game has improved over the years, I wouldn't put it past him..
Click to expand...

I dont disagree completely with any of this.

The only thing I would say is that playing on Clay would probably require Andy to change his game style, which not only is a difficult thing to do but also means to some degree of not playing "naturally".

Given that to win more majors AM probably still needs to improve certain facets of his game (like the often criticized 2nd serve to name one), just to win one major - Im not entirely convinced he should until he is much more successful in the Majors he has already been successful in (ie already got to multiple finals).

Im hoping sticking too far back from the base line will also naturally improve the more confident / successful he becomes (something else mentioned often over the last week).


Davey_Pitch said:
Now for the next challenges for him - more Slams, and becoming World Number 1. I honestly think he can do both, especially as he has reached his last 4 Slam finals. With Federer's powers finally fading, and Nadal's knees letting him down on everything except clay, we could really be into a new era in tennis with Murray and Djokovic being the dominant forces for the next few years. I think we'll see those two in many many more finals together over the next 3-4 years.
Click to expand...

I dont see why AM cant become No1 as well. This year (as mentioned on commentary yesterday) might be a bit of a push as even if he wins in NY later this year, he is only defending last year's ranking points. Next year (especially with a good Aus and a good run upto Wimbledon , injury free) is his best chance , and as you said, continueing for the next few years.
 
Eyes up buddy!

eZ1KKWc.jpg
 
Just watched the documentary. Great the way they've edited it and brought it right up till this morning showing Andy returning to an empty centre court and talking about his thoughts during the last few points. I have a new respect for the guy and in fact, I reckon he'd be a good laugh to be around. James Corden summed him up, "Andy takes his job very very seriously.. but he doesn't take himself seriously at all!" Murray the movie? It's a pity the movie Wimbledon has already been made because with Murray as the focal point it would be a real smash box office hit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b02ywyts/Andy_Murray_The_Man_Behind_the_Racquet/
 
Well done Murray...his incredible focus and determination has finally paid off. I actually thought his semi final with the polish chap was a tougher battle...that guy will be top 6 within 2 years i reckon. Gargantuan serving and very powerful groundstrokes....and only 22.

But i think Murray's ultimate challenge...will be retaining HUNGER and desire to achieve lots of slams. He is talking about reevaluating his goals etc. I mention how important this is because i remember Novaks year when he was pretty much invincible and won nearly everything...imo he hasnt retained that level. Yes hes brilliant but he doesnt have the same aura that he did.
 
Great program tonight. I think it really showed some of Murrays character. Really pleased for the guy and hope he goes on to plenty more success.

His play yesterday was fantastic, I was most impressed by how well he got around the court, he's real quick!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom