C'mon ANDY

[the-e-dealer]

Did we never win much then. I got the impression we were good?

[Help-Ma-Boab]

He's the same age as Djocko and reckon him and Murray will move into the top 2 as Rodge le podge moves into retirement phase and Nadal knackers his knees and body.

He's not a million miles away from a slam IMHO, needs to work a bit on 2nd serve and converting breaks when they matter. Lendl will be a good influence if they stick together on it. Still a good tourney for Murray I reckon and next year, a slam awaits.

Feds movement yesterday was a joy to watch, but Murrays no slouch either.

[Atticus]

all three cricket teams, cycling, motor racing, swimming, athletics (to an extent) I'd say overall, we are a smallish nation punching way above our weight.

[El Pibe]

We have some pretty good patches in the Rugby too, and the tiddlywinks.

Cheeserolling, don't forget that.

[the-e-dealer]

Well I take it all back. Clearly we are very good at most sports in the International Arena. (tu)

[DulwichFox]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Murray is a bit unfortunate in that he is playing

> in a 'golden era' where there are 3 world class

> players in Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. The odds

> of him not playing one of them at some point in a

> tournemant are pretty slim.

In any Era there will be World class Players.....

So if You want to Win Wimbledon (Or any Sport) you have to be up there with them..

And to win . You have to be the Best..

Murray simply wasn't / isn't the best.

To say he was unfortunate is ridiculous.

What ? Perhaps we should give Murray a Bye on the quarter/semi finals.

so he dosn't have to meet anyone good 'till the Final and he will be nice and refreshed.

Oh perhaps he should have a 1 Set Start..

Fox.

[Jeremy]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think its a pretty poor excuse that he's up

> against 3 world class players...

>

> Would he have fared any better in the era of Borg,

> McEnroe and Connors ?

Ditto Sampras/Agassi. Or even Becker and Edberg. Would his chances have been any better when these guys were top of the rankings?

[Undisputedtruth]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We have some pretty good patches in the Rugby too,

> and the tiddlywinks.

>

> Cheeserolling, don't forget that.

For a long time before their success, Spanish footballers were regarded as underachievers in relation to their ability.

[Help-Ma-Boab]

Oh....and congrats to Jonathan Marray, Gents doubles winner.

[titch juicy]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well I take it all back. Clearly we are very good

> at most sports in the International Arena. (tu)

That's about right, well done for being big enough to admit you were wrong.

I'm not usually a fan of Charlie Brooker, but he has this spot on (apologies if there's any choice languae contained within)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/08/andy-murray-not-miserable-just-normal

"Andy Murray: not miserable, just normal"

So what if he never smiles? Can't he just play tennis without having to pull a happy face for you?"

ARTICLE:

Congratulations to Andy Murray, who either did or didn't win Wimbledon this afternoon. Since I'm writing this almost immediately before the match itself kicks off, I've got no way of knowing what the outcome was. Is. Will be. Whatever.

I think I can safely predict one thing, though: whatever happens, win or lose, in the post-game interview, he won't do a double thumbs-up, gurn joyously down the lens, waggle his tongue around like Gazza, then moonwalk off, waving, grinning, and making comedy trombone noises. That's not the Andy Murray we know and sort of love.

People say Murray's miserable because he doesn't smile very often. He's not miserable. He's normal. Have you walked down a street recently? Any street in the country? Go on, pick one. Take a stroll. Bring a notepad. Make a note each time you spot someone walking around beaming like they just taught their dog to shit money. Chances are you'll cross six postcodes before you glimpse so much as a smirk. Which isn't to say people are inherently unhappy. Just that they've got better things to do with their faces than walking around bending their mouths up like idiots.

The people who want Murray to smile are the same ones who try to make me dance at weddings. They want the world to conspicuously enjoy itself in a manner of their choosing, and they turn vaguely sanctimonious when they encounter pockets of resistance, as though their definition of fun is the only one that matters.

So Murray isn't going to win the Merryville Festival of Grins any time soon. What difference does it make to you, you needy pricks? Can't he just play tennis without having to turn around after each point and pull a happy face just for you, like he's your dad watering plants in the garden and you're a toddler watching him through the kitchen window? What do you want, a tennis champion or Mister Tumble? Make your mind up, because you're not getting both.

Perhaps part of the confusion is that despite being very much in the public eye, Murray refuses to play along with the patronising emotionalism demanded by the media, where sporting stars are expected to put on showy displays of "passion" that look good in a highlights package at the end of the show. If you're not a natural cartwheels-of-victory type, it must be a pain in the arse to know everyone's expectantly gauging your reaction. You know how when you're opening a birthday present in front of a crowd, all your brain can do is scream: "FOR GOD'S SAKE LOOK DELIGHTED!" at you? Multiply that by ten million. I'd say Murray's ability to ignore this pressure is almost more impressive than his racquet skills.

Moments after beating Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the semi-final, Murray was interviewed by the BBC's Garry Richardson, who found himself repeatedly trying to squeeze some kind of rousing sentiment from a man intent on describing the game in technical terms, like a straight-faced IT consultant explaining how he fixed a problem with the server.

After trying and failing to get him to describe the match as a rollercoaster of emotions, Richardson brought up Murray's mum and dad, who'd been sitting in the audience. "What can it possibly have been like, Andy, for your parents watching there?" he asked, presumably hoping to prompt a moment of choked-up pride. Murray handed him a cold stone in return.

"I've no idea," he replied, deadpan. "I'm not really that bothered. It's a lot harder for me, that's for sure." And there was a glimmer of a dark smirk at the end, the kind that doesn't register in a world in which all emotions must be expressible as emoticons and interior happiness is required to be rendered visible from a range of 200 metres.

That's precisely the kind of sporting hero we need. One who's allergic to bullshit and treats the whole thing like a job that rather than a tear-jerked spiritual calling. He seems to want to ignore the media. Trouble is, he's so bloody good at tennis, the media can't ignore him. But like a bluebottle repeatedly bashing its face against a windowpane, it continually tries and fails to turn him into yet another easily digested celebrity. "Celebrity" is increasingly the only role the media can process, yet it's a role in which Murray looks about as comfortable as a dog on rollerblades.

In the run-up to the Wimbledon final (which, at the risk of repeating myself, hasn't happened at the time of writing), press and broadcasters alike routinely described Murray as some kind of symbolic vessel containing all British hope. All our dreams, all our aspirations all on his shoulders, apparently. Poor fucker.

The strong implication was that if he won, it'd solve all our national neuroses at a stroke: like England won Euro 2012, like Barclays behaved, like Diana never died. We'd be commanded to stand outside collectively waving union flags as though trying to attract the attention of some huge intergalactic queen bee hovering somewhere above the atmosphere. But if, on the other hand, he lost we'd either tut and say it's typical because we're allowed to be grouchy, but the people we pointlessly entrust with our sense of national self-worth aren't or, more likely, be expected to sit soggy-eyed watching a slow-motion montage of his disappointed face, cut to something mournful-but-unthreatening with a hint of Coldplay about it. Because if he won't supply the emotion, goddamit, we'll make the soundtrack do it on his behalf.

[steveo]

Like

[the-e-dealer]

Well done for cutting and pasting a big bit of text.

[El Pibe]

"For a long time before their success, Spanish footballers were regarded as underachievers in relation to their ability."

Your point?

[red devil]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think its a pretty poor excuse that he's up

> > against 3 world class players...

> >

> > Would he have fared any better in the era of

> Borg,

> > McEnroe and Connors ?

>

> Ditto Sampras/Agassi. Or even Becker and Edberg.

> Would his chances have been any better when these

> guys were top of the rankings?

Of course there will always be good players in any era, but IMO what marks out the current era is the all round depth of quality of Fed, Rafa and Djokovic. It's unusual to have 3 world class players capable of winning on all surfaces, thus making it harder for Murray to win any of the Slams.

Fed, Rafa and Djokovic, have each won the 4 Grand Slams. There are no surface specialists in that group. Borg never won at the US or Oz Open. McEnroe never won at the French or Oz Open.

Also, in the open tennis era there have only been 6 players to win three or more Grand Slam singles titles in a calendar year...Rod Laver, Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic. Note the last 3...

[El Pibe]

WHilst I agree with red devil's point I can't help wondering if this is more a sign that training techniques and fitness/diet regimes are compressing the qualitative range of players in the a reminiscent of the marginal edges needed to win at sprinting or motorsport?

Had you plonked Murray as he is now in the court with the past greats as they were then he'd have wiped the floor with them.

Not that I can get worked up about tennis these days, those past greats wiped the floor with anyone in the last 15 years or so personailty wise and it's the robotic nature of today's tennis that turns me off however impressive the tennis of Federe, Nadal et al may be.

They're just so booooooring, bring back Connors v McEnroe please.

[Sue]

I don't watch much tennis, and what I want to know is, whatever happened to the Serve and Volley which the mens' game in particular always seemed to consist of?

Have they been told to give the spectators more for their money by having longer rallies, or something? They hardly seem to go to the net at all these days if yesterday was anything to go by .....

And when did they change the tie-break system? (Showing my age, please don't tell me it was thirty years ago :) )

[????]

Spain-Nadal-Barceolna

*coughs

Drugs...alledgedley

[red devil]

Serve and volley was really only a tactic that succeeded on faster grass courts. Not sure why, but Wimbledon's grass surface is slower these days, making it easier for any player coming to the net to be passed. I believe racket technology has also moved on, creating a bigger 'sweet spot', again helping the players that stay back to hit passing shots...

[Mick Mac]

Players winning on all surfaces has become easier as the surfaces have come closer together (slower grass and faster clay) and not because these players are a golden age.

I have this from a tennis "expert" at work - I really don't know how you get faster clay....

[El Pibe]

butter?

[DulwichFox]

Did not see much Banana eating yesterday...

Perhaps that's why Murray looked Knackered...

Needed a few High G.I. Carbs...

Fox.

[red devil]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Players winning on all surfaces has become easier

> as the surfaces have come closer together (slower

> grass and faster clay) and not because these

> players are a golden age.

>

> I have this from a tennis "expert" at work - I

> really don't know how you get faster clay....

Actually I think you'll find it's because the Gulf Stream is lower than normal...new balls please

[Loz]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not that I can get worked up about tennis these days, those past greats wiped the floor with

> anyone in the last 15 years or so personailty wise and it's the robotic nature of today's tennis that

> turns me off however impressive the tennis of Federe, Nadal et al may be.

>

> They're just so booooooring, bring back Connors v McEnroe please.

I'm sorry, but the shouty poor sportsmanship of McEnroe does not a personality make. And Connors was hardly Mr Interesting, either.

[*Bob*]

Line-up every living tennis player in front of everyone in the world who watches tennis - ask them to step forward and watch John Mc get the loudest cheer - every time. There's your answer on personalities.

But as Pibe says, it's tennis from a different era - and it's pointless comparing the two, really. It's Formula One tennis these days. Incredible athleticism, unbelievable play.. but in the quest for complete professionalism there's a whole lot of, I dunno, charm maybe? - gone out of the whole thing.

[El Pibe]

I'll admit I was young when I watched them, but I really liked Connors (possible because he looked like Gil Gerrard) and McEnroe may have been brattish (even at 10 I could tell that) but it was interesting.