The Tennis Thread

[Kieran76]

A woman at work described his performance as "sh*t" and "he gave up".

I'd like to see how she does against the world number 1 and arguably the greatest player the game has seen.

He was outplayed, but I'd never say he played "sh*t". He was amazing in that first set and returned many shots that seemed impossible to get to.

The same woman hates Back to the Future but won't hear a bad thing against George Michael, so I don't rate her opinion particularly highly.

In happier news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-18765015

You have to accept that these big sporting events bring out the armchair fans and people who do not even like sport at all. During any football tournament some of the people at my work often claim that the money they make is the reason they do not win. When I try to push them on this and ask them if they think England would have won the Euro's if they got less playing for their domestic teams they change the subject, and start talking about how much they earn compared to nurses. When I then ask them if they are okay with vast sums that people like Simon Cowell earn they change the subject once again.

[Anpanman]

To be fair, it isn't a sportsperson's job to be a role model, nor should it be. Your parents should be your role models first and foremost, surely?

True 100% however, sports stars are more and more held up as such and that's where my comment comes from whether true or no, do you think if Messi and Ronaldo for example went around smoking everywhere it would make more or less young smokers?

That said, I agree about Murray's game for the most part - his game has long been re-active, whereas Federer, Nadal & Djokovic play pro-active tennis with them always looking to force the issue in games.

Indeed, he was for a long time negative, awaiting for the opponent to make a mistake, he's being more aggressive now but his game doesn't get me out of my seat like watching the top three.

[prinnysquad]

I've never really been a fan of Murray's, but I felt sorry for the bloke last night. He gave everything, but it wasn't good enough. Federer had the extra power, the extra accuracy, and the extra ruthlessness. Even when Federer was on the ropes at 0-1 and break points down, you never felt like he would crumble. He just played pure clutch yesterday.

Murray puts the weight of the nation on his shoulders during Wimbledon - none of the other top 4 have a 'home' tournament slam and don't need to face that. Despite that, he actually won a set this time. There's definitely greater mental strength there, it's just whether he can draw from this defeat rather than let it consume him. He's facing the misfortune of having the obstacle of 2, possibly 3, bona fide greats in front of him. Agassi said last week that in any other modern era, Murray would have a slam by now. He's possibly correct. On 5 Live today they noted the opponents in the first Slams won by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - Phillipoussis, Puerta (who??) and Tsonga. Murray would beat all of them hands down, but instead he's got the Nightmare Trio to negotiate every tournament.

Yep, I feel sorry for him. He's caught in the middle ground of being far too good for all the rest, but not quite good enough to defeat the top 3 in a final.

[Colin]

I've never really been a fan of Murray's, but I felt sorry for the bloke last night. He gave everything, but it wasn't good enough. Federer had the extra power, the extra accuracy, and the extra ruthlessness. Even when Federer was on the ropes at 0-1 and break points down, you never felt like he would crumble. He just played pure clutch yesterday.

Murray puts the weight of the nation on his shoulders during Wimbledon - none of the other top 4 have a 'home' tournament slam and don't need to face that. Despite that, he actually won a set this time. There's definitely greater mental strength there, it's just whether he can draw from this defeat rather than let it consume him. He's facing the misfortune of having the obstacle of 2, possibly 3, bona fide greats in front of him. Agassi said last week that in any other modern era, Murray would have a slam by now. He's possibly correct. On 5 Live today they noted the opponents in the first Slams won by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - Phillipoussis, Puerta (who??) and Tsonga. Murray would beat all of them hands down, but instead he's got the Nightmare Trio to negotiate every tournament.

Yep, I feel sorry for him. He's caught in the middle ground of being far too good for all the rest, but not quite good enough to defeat the top 3 in a final.

That, is an excellent post.

[Nu-Eclipse]

do you think if Messi and Ronaldo for example went around smoking everywhere it would make more or less young smokers?

With proper role models in place for kids to aspire to (like parents), I'd find it highly unlikely, tbh. Cristiano Ronaldo was pretty much shagging anything off the pitch during his time at Man Utd - he even paid for sex, if newspaper reports at the time are to be believed. I don't see kids over here running around to emulate that.

Indeed, he was for a long time negative, awaiting for the opponent to make a mistake, he's being more aggressive now but his game doesn't get me out of my seat like watching the top three.

Many people accuse Rafael Nadal of being boring - nothing but a power game. Pete Sampras was accused of boring play also - just an awesome serve and nothing else. So what? Check their CVs.

It's the job of these players to go out and try to win, first and foremost. If they can entertain with their tennis (a l? Federer or Borg), then fantastic, but that isn't the priority, nor should it be. Entertaining tennis and winning tennis don't go hand in hand.

[Nu-Eclipse]

had the extra power, the extra accuracy, and the extra ruthlessness. Even when Federer was on the ropes at 0-1 and break points down, you never felt like he would crumble. He just played pure clutch yesterday.

That's highly debatable in many ways. It's fast becoming clear that for all his brilliance on Sunday, Federer is fast losing the athleticism (the key factor that put him so far ahead of the field in the first decade of the 2000s) to compete with the others in the top 4. Nadal & Djokovic blew him away earlier this year at the Australian and French Opens respectively. Against Murray on Sunday, Federer was always looking to end points early as he was almost always losing baseline exchanges against Murray. He even started consistently serve/volleying - something he hasn't done often since he debuted on the Tour. I'd would argue that Federer got the lucky break he needed in the 2nd set, otherwise Murray would have been well placed to win with a two-set lead. That said, it didn't look good after Federer drew level.

Murray puts the weight of the nation on his shoulders during Wimbledon - none of the other top 4 have a 'home' tournament slam and don't need to face that. Despite that, he actually won a set this time. There's definitely greater mental strength there, it's just whether he can draw from this defeat rather than let it consume him. He's facing the misfortune of having the obstacle of 2, possibly 3, bona fide greats in front of him. Agassi said last week that in any other modern era, Murray would have a slam by now. He's possibly correct. On 5 Live today they noted the opponents in the first Slams won by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - Phillipoussis, Puerta (who??) and Tsonga. Murray would beat all of them hands down, but instead he's got the Nightmare Trio to negotiate every tournament.

Yep, I feel sorry for him. He's caught in the middle ground of being far too good for all the rest, but not quite good enough to defeat the top 3 in a final.

Can't really disagree with the majority of this, although the "any other era" argument really isn't as clear-cut as many try to make it out to be. Would this current top four really compete in a prime Sampras/Agassi or Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl era (and that's not even mentioning the plethora of quality players just below those guys in those respective eras - guys like Kuerten, Rafter, Becker, Ivanisevic, Courier, Chang, etc.)? How would Rod Laver fare if he was playing today with the same hi-tech equipment and access to better nutrition and physical preparation? There are far too many variables to consider.

Oh and Mariano Puerta reached the French Open final in 2005 - an old-school Clay Court expert. Murray beating him (or any other solid Clay specialist past or present on the red stuff) is questionable.

[prinnysquad]

That's highly debatable in many ways. It's fast becoming clear that for all his brilliance on Sunday, Federer is fast losing the athleticism (the key factor that put him so far ahead of the field in the first decade of the 2000s) to compete with the others in the top 4. Nadal & Djokovic blew him away earlier this year at the Australian and French Opens respectively. Against Murray on Sunday, Federer was always looking to end points early as he was almost always losing baseline exchanges against Murray. He even started consistently serve/volleying - something he hasn't done often since he debuted on the Tour. I'd would argue that Federer got the lucky break he needed in the 2nd set, otherwise Murray would have been well placed to win with a two-set lead. That said, it didn't look good after Federer drew level.

This basically means that Federer adapted his game to beat his opponent - the mark of a true champion. He blasted Djokovic - the outstanding player in the last 18 months - in 4 sets, and did the same to Murray. I would argue that Federer defended those break points he faced with aggression and composure, rather than Murray particularly losing them. Still, we all see the game slightly differently I guess.

Can't really disagree with the majority of this, although the "any other era" argument really isn't as clear-cut as many try to make it out to be. Would this current top four really compete in a prime Sampras/Agassi or Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl era (and that's not even mentioning the plethora of quality players just below those guys in those respective eras - guys like Kuerten, Rafter, Becker, Ivanisevic, Courier, Chang, etc.)? How would Rod Laver fare if he was playing today with the same hi-tech equipment and access to better nutrition and physical preparation? There are far too many variables to consider.

Oh and Mariano Puerta reached the French Open final in 2005 - an old-school Clay Court expert. Murray beating him (or any other solid Clay specialist past or present on the red stuff) is questionable.

Yeah, I know who he is, I was just making a flippant reference to his relative obscurity in the face of who Murray has faced in slam finals and semis. Nadal is a brilliant clay player, and I'd argue that he facing Puerta on clay is easier for him than Murray facing Federer on grass (7 wins) or hard courts (9 wins), or Djokovic in his unstoppable pomp.

I agree it's impossible to compare eras, though, although I thinking the point is reasonable in some respects, when folk like Krajicek and Stich have won Wimbledon. They were good, but not the greats that Murray faces.

[Anpanman]

With proper role models in place for kids to aspire to (like parents), I'd find it highly unlikely, tbh. Cristiano Ronaldo was pretty much shagging anything off the pitch during his time at Man Utd - he even paid for sex, if newspaper reports at the time are to be believed. I don't see kids over here running around to emulate that.

Hmmm, but plenty of kids don't have parents whom they can look up to which is a great shame, I'm absolutely positive that growing up with my mates made us want to play like Georgie Best but but older kids were perhaps more interested in his off field antics.

It's the job of these players to go out and try to win, first and foremost. If they can entertain with their tennis (a l? Federer or Borg), then fantastic, but that isn't the priority, nor should it be. Entertaining tennis and winning tennis don't go hand in hand.

Never said it is am sure Murray would rather be Mr Boring and have 17 GS titles than Mr Entertainer and have none, I'm simply saying whom I prefer to watch.

[EJG1980]

Shock loss for Federer in the US Open quarter-final last night. Big chance for Murray to break his grand slam duck now that Federer is out of the way. I was hoping Fed would take the title as I'd like to see him break the twenty barrier for grand slam wins, but it'd be great to see Murray finally win one.

[Anpanman]

Me too, every GS Federer can get pulls him away from Nadal - not that I dislike Nadal but think Federer is a more pure tennis player.

Agree that Murray has got a great chance, always said this was his best tournament to win and you can see him improve at every Grand Slam, still don't want him to win though but yep can see him doing it.

[Colin]

I hope all the Murray haters are choking on their cereal with rage this morning. Sadly their comments will just go from "He'll never win a major, he's not good enough" to "He'll never win all the majors and get the slam, he's not good enough". An excellent, physically and mentally tough final. Well done to him, I don't regret staying up in to the small hours for it.

[stevie vip 99]

Watched some of this last night. Well done its been a long time coming. He's one of the fittest blokes on the tour these days so can handle the 5 sets.
Hopefully he can relax more in the future now he's won a major and bring home a few more.

[Nu-Eclipse]

I hope all the Murray haters are choking on their cereal with rage this morning. Sadly their comments will just go from "He'll never win a major, he's not good enough" to "He'll never win all the majors and get the slam, he's not good enough". An excellent, physically and mentally tough final. Well done to him, I don't regret staying up in to the small hours for it.

Couldn't agree more. A fantastic final. Listened to it on 5 Live - riveting stuff.

Murray to win the ATP World Tour Finals and finish season as World no. 1?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62811000/jpg/_62811081_62811080.jpg

[EJG1980]

I hope all the Murray haters are choking on their cereal with rage this morning. Sadly their comments will just go from "He'll never win a major, he's not good enough" to "He'll never win all the majors and get the slam, he's not good enough". An excellent, physically and mentally tough final. Well done to him, I don't regret staying up in to the small hours for it.

I went to bed when it was 2-0 to Murray and Djokovic had gone a break up in the third set. Wish I'd forced myself to stay up!

Glad he beat one of the big three to win it as well, proving he can beat the best and belongs up there with them. I don't understand how anyone could criticise his ability, he just needs to get to the French Open final and he'll have contested the final of all four majors. Hopefully he can add a few more wins as well!

Murray to win the ATP World Tour Finals and finish season as World no. 1?]

Is that possible? There's quite a big gap still between his ranking points and those of Djokovic and Federer. I don't know how many points you get for each tournament win, but I'd expect that it'd need a pretty big drop off in form for the top two for him to manage it.

[nakamura]

Great to see Murray win it, I said he would the second he lost the Wimbledon final. It just felt like he was going to make it this year. He had the game, just not the run of luck needed.