Jump to content

Andy Murray Latest and General Tennis Chat


Bryan

Recommended Posts

Wawrinka's hitting was excellent. Murray didn't really want to be there by the looks of his body language. I really think Murray detests the clay season. He is the only player in the top ten never to make a final in the clay. Only Tsonga and himself have never won a tournament on clay. I would expect Stan to win tomorrow as well, but Tsonga will give him a more of a game.

Wawrinka will perform better this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Murray has any ambition at all to get himself up the rankings he is going to have to pull his finger out in the non-slam events.

He just doesnt seem interested a lot of the time and his record is pretty poor for the last couple of years especially compared to his record in slams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree. He has won 9 atp 1000 masters events. World number 1 Djokovic has only 4 more.

If you take WGC events in golf as an equivalent. Lee Westwood has not won any and Luke Donald has won just 1 title.

Murray is doing fine at this level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Murray has any ambition at all to get himself up the rankings he is going to have to pull his finger out in the non-slam events.

He just doesnt seem interested a lot of the time and his record is pretty poor for the last couple of years especially compared to his record in slams.

He won the Miami Masters to become world number two...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Murray has any ambition at all to get himself up the rankings he is going to have to pull his finger out in the non-slam events.

He just doesnt seem interested a lot of the time and his record is pretty poor for the last couple of years especially compared to his record in slams.

Up until a couple of years ago the criticism was the opposite, that he performed well in the Masters events but couldn't beat the same players in the Slams. In the last couple of years he's clearly changed his training and schedule to peak at the Slams, which he has, but it's had a negative effect on his Masters performances. While he would obviously like to win more Masters events I think he would be foolish to change what he's doing at the moment as it's seen him reach the last 3 slam finals.

It will be hard for him to ever reach world number 1 because of how weak he is on clay (relatively speaking of course), he would need to clean up over the grass and hard hard court stretch, which with Djokovic around isn't going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Murray has any ambition at all to get himself up the rankings he is going to have to pull his finger out in the non-slam events.

He just doesnt seem interested a lot of the time and his record is pretty poor for the last couple of years especially compared to his record in slams.

Bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is down to No.3 in the world again. However there is 10 pts difference between Federer and Murray with Murray needing to defend 90 points in the next two Master events and Federer needing to defend 1360. So as long as Murray doesn't have a performance like he did against Wawrinka he should be second going into the French. Nadal will be at least number 5 in the world going into the French. As he has 1,590 points to defend. David Ferrer is almost 1,000 points ahead now. So he would need to drop out early in both Masters Events and Nadal will have to win them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree. He has won 9 atp 1000 masters events. World number 1 Djokovic has only 4 more.

If you take WGC events in golf as an equivalent. Lee Westwood has not won any and Luke Donald has won just 1 title.

Murray is doing fine at this level.

He won the Miami Masters to become world number two...

>

Disagree. He has won 9 atp 1000 masters events. World number 1 Djokovic has only 4 more.

If you take WGC events in golf as an equivalent. Lee Westwood has not won any and Luke Donald has won just 1 title.

Murray is doing fine at this level.

Up until a couple of years ago the criticism was the opposite, that he performed well in the Masters events but couldn't beat the same players in the Slams. In the last couple of years he's clearly changed his training and schedule to peak at the Slams, which he has, but it's had a negative effect on his Masters performances. While he would obviously like to win more Masters events I think he would be foolish to change what he's doing at the moment as it's seen him reach the last 3 slam finals.

It will be hard for him to ever reach world number 1 because of how weak he is on clay (relatively speaking of course), he would need to clean up over the grass and hard hard court stretch, which with Djokovic around isn't going to happen.

Bollocks.

He has done really well in the past in Masters events but not in the last year and a half.

In the last year for example he has won Miami but to be honest he didnt play that well and his main rivals all dropped out early.

Other than that he has reached one final but hasnt made a semi in any of the other Master events in the last year.

Given the amount of talent Murray has and how much better he is than the players outside the top four he should regularly be making semi finals.

I am not expecting him to be beating Djokavic, Nadal and Federer every week but he shouldnt need to to make semi finals most of the time.

To say he doesnt peak for Masters tournaments, I dont buy that, who does peak for them? Tennis players should all be geared up to performing at their peak in the Slams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has done really well in the past in Masters events but not in the last year and a half.

In the last year for example he has won Miami but to be honest he didnt play that well and his main rivals all dropped out early.

Other than that he has reached one final but hasnt made a semi in any of the other Master events in the last year.

Given the amount of talent Murray has and how much better he is than the players outside the top four he should regularly be making semi finals.

I am not expecting him to be beating Djokavic, Nadal and Federer every week but he shouldnt need to to make semi finals most of the time.

To say he doesnt peak for Masters tournaments, I dont buy that, who does peak for them? Tennis players should all be geared up to performing at their peak in the Slams.

His main rivals dropped out early? Well for a start Federer and Nadal did not enter that tournament. Tommy Haas played close to the best tennis of anyone to beat Novak in straight sets. You can only beat what is in front of you. Murray had a poor result against Wawrinka, but Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have all had surprise losses this year as well. He also lost to an inspired Del Potro in Indian Wells, Del Potro was very unlucky not to tough the final out and beat Nadal. He had also a great win over Djokovic in the SF to follow up his defeat of Murray in the QF.

I will agree with you that last year the Masters events were not his high priority, but I think this year he has already showed that they mean more to him this year. Murray will always have the odd hammering on clay.

Over a best of three match sometimes you can get beat. I would say that he hasn't played any 500 or 250 events since the start of the year shows that he is taking the Masters events seriously this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be a stupid question but I may as well ask as someone might know the answer!

I noticed that they have increased the prize money for Wimbledon by 40%. This seems like a pretty big increase and I wouldnt say they would be forced to do it as people will play the event anyway given its a Slam.

Are they increasing the money just because they have nothing else to do with it? Is it for bragging rights as you want to have the kudos of paying the most? Or is it just out of the goodness of their hearts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of it is to try and increase the prize money for those in the qualifiers and the first couple of rounds in particular - there's a lot of players who don't make a wonderful living (in terms of cash) out of the game and this is an attempt to help. Of course in doing this, there tends to be a need to increase it all the way through so that the distribution remains fairly similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of it is to try and increase the prize money for those in the qualifiers and the first couple of rounds in particular - there's a lot of players who don't make a wonderful living (in terms of cash) out of the game and this is an attempt to help. Of course in doing this, there tends to be a need to increase it all the way through so that the distribution remains fairly similar.

Not too bad for all those hopeless British wildcards then :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wimbledon can now say they are the biggest and best tournament in the World now as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see them negotiating overseas TV deals in the next few weeks after that announcement.

Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Federer have all stated that there should be less for winning a tournament and more for people losing earlier on. So the men's game gets a better distribution voted through quicker than the women's game. As Chopper said those perennial wild card losers will do okay this year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wimbledon can now say they are the biggest and best tournament in the World now as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see them negotiating overseas TV deals in the next few weeks after that announcement.

Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Federer have all stated that there should be less for winning a tournament and more for people losing earlier on. So the men's game gets a better distribution voted through quicker than the women's game. As Chopper said those perennial wild card losers will do okay this year!

I think this is a good thing. It's actually a pretty tough gig for even guys in the 100-150 bracket. Once you've paid your bills there wont be a lot left over, unless you're lucky enough to have good sponsorship.

I'm amazed there are so many full time tennis players to be honest. There's a rack of guys who play 10 years hovering in the 200-500 bracket, and maybe qualify for one grand slam if they are lucky. Living the dream i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a good thing. It's actually a pretty tough gig for even guys in the 100-150 bracket. Once you've paid your bills there wont be a lot left over, unless you're lucky enough to have good sponsorship.

I'm amazed there are so many full time tennis players to be honest. There's a rack of guys who play 10 years hovering in the 200-500 bracket, and maybe qualify for one grand slam if they are lucky. Living the dream i guess.

If it allows players to earn more money, and allows them to travel for Master and Slam qualifiers and allows them to concentrate on playing tennis more often it can only be good for the game. The likes of Donskoy and Rosol have been gigging about on the challenger circuit for a couple of years as they had no sponsors and couldn't enter these bigger tournaments. A couple of good results and you can see that they pull in the sponsors and improve as players. Goffin had no sponsors at all last season until his run in the French, Rosol none until he cooly held his serve to beat Nadal at Wimbledon.

Plus the big four will still command their appearance money. Murray will no doubt get a large cheque for just appearing at Queens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...