Tennis

[Manwell Pablo]

Here is a prime example of the BBC 606 tosh that comes out:

"Murray is a natural, give him a year of hard work and he could easily become the man to beat!"

Where do these idiots come from!?!?!! Nadal is younger, fitter and FAR more skilled that Murray ever will be, Federer is still lightyears ahead of him and Djokovic is improving far faster than Murray and already has a Grand Slam under his belt!

All that and I still haven't even mentioned that Murray has no real weapons at all... his serve is fairly average really, you won't see him smacking aces down or even really using it to construct the points, his forehand is strong but nothing incredible and his backhand is nothing special either, his volleys I can't really comment about as I don't see him doing them that often but they look fairly strong when he does, his crazy drop-shots are lunacy sometimes and really let him down because they are so poor and at completely the wrong times, his attitude is pathetic, he looks like he is sloping around the court and everything is a real effort for him... and then when things go wrong he becomes abusive, aggressive and surly. I really don't see what there is to like about this guy at all... he is so miserable looking and even when he becomes pumped with emotion and drive, some of the characteristics that I love about Nadal and Serena, my two favourite players, he still looks like some crazy neanderthal with his huge square mouth and weird facial hair! Yes, they aren't really things that you should be taking into account when supporting a player but I'm sorry, they do play a huge part in what makes a player likable or not... and Murray, to me, is not AT ALL likable. What then infuriates me even more is the ridiculous support he gets from incredibly stupid Brits who think he's an amazing player and his own self belief when there is little cause for anyone including himself to think he can or could beat the Big 3 at the top of the game. Serena is another player who is VERY self confident and blames losses on herself not the opponents quality but after winning 8 singles Grand Slams, 9 doubles and mixed doubles Grand Slams, having been world number 1 and is still winning a hell of a lot, I think she kinda has the right to be, so good on her!! Murray and Murray fans need to wake up to the fact that so far, Murray has had a fairly simple draw compared to what it could have been... not facing a really top player who is consistently at the top in the first 5 rounds of a Slam is a fairly good draw so I would have expected him to have been making this stage!!! Nothing of what he has achieved so far is in any way shape or form incredible or showing of any improvement from earlier in the year... here's to hoping Nadal puts him in his place!!!

He's got a fantastic record against Federer, and he's just beat Djokovic twice in a row. The only one he's always had problems with is Nadal.

[FilboFox]

He's got a fantastic record against Federer, and he's just beat Djokovic twice in a row. The only one he's always had problems with is Nadal.

Yes, I thought that might be mentioned... I do think that Djokovic struggles against him sometimes and therefore Murray has beaten him twice in a row but Djokovic hasn't been playing all that well recently which may have contributed to that... I certainly wouldn't have even thought it would have been a contest between Murray and Djokovic at the start of the year and with 2009 having less tournaments, I think Djoko will stay fitter and be more able to take him on... and beat him.

As for the Federer matches, well, well done to Andy... I hate Federer as much as I dislike Murray so I'm not going to complain about it too much but Federer hasn't been having his best year this year so that wouldn't help but you can't take it away from Murray that he has been good on some occasions... I don't see him ever becoming "the one to beat" though as he simply isn't good enough... Murray playing his best tennis against Nadal, Federer or Djokovic playing theirs is no contest... Murray would lose all of them no question.

[purpleronnie]

Murray = Legend. Already reached number 4 in the world, semi of US open, already won a ATP tournament, same as tim heman and still only 21.

[martyn]

To say Murray is "little more than good" is absolutely ludicrous, tantamount to those morons who claimed Henman was a choker and a perpetual disappointment after spending many years in the top 10 and reaching 6 slam semi-finals. To be 4th in the World in any sport is the definition of "world-class".

Del Potro came off a run of 23 straight victories, oozing confidence and playing some unbelievable tennis, the guy is clearly going to be a top 10 player extremely soon. Murray had to adjust his style as trading blows with JMDP would have been absolutely useless, hence the abundance of slice backhands and changes of pace. In truth, Murray actually played a pretty average match with too many basic unforced errors and poor 1st service percentage and as such, for the argument claiming that JMDP would have won had it not been for 'mistakes' you can counter by mentioning the dreadful games Murray threw in after being a break ahead and cruising in sets 1 and 3.

No-one claims the guy is the finished article (i dont think he will ever be a world number 1 or multiple Grand Slam winner fwiw) but, to launch into the diatribe slamming anyone who claims he can win a grand slam is rather laughable considering he has now beaten every top 10 player except Nadal, won a Masters Series event and claimed 6 career titles already. To also claim a guy has 'no weapons' when his double handed backhand is possibly the best in the world is also rather confusing.

Edit: Also, mentioning Murray "scraping through" against Melzer ignores 2 things. Melzer was hitting crazy winners left right and centre for 2 sets, and also ignores the fact that Federer and Djokovic also "scraped through" against Andreev and Robredo respectively. This also fails to mention Nadal's struggles against the mighty talent Sam Querrey.

I do think Murray hate is understandable however. He is petulant (although has been far better recently) and the SKY (or more especially Mark Petchey) coverage and lauding of him is enough to wish an opponent to run through a 3 set demoliton job just to shut them up (Petchey claiming Del Potro's US Open was collapsing round him at 6-7 5-5 being a prime example of this nonsense)

Edited 4 September 2008 by martyn

[Manwell Pablo]

Yes, I thought that might be mentioned... I do think that Djokovic struggles against him sometimes and therefore Murray has beaten him twice in a row but Djokovic hasn't been playing all that well recently which may have contributed to that... I certainly wouldn't have even thought it would have been a contest between Murray and Djokovic at the start of the year and with 2009 having less tournaments, I think Djoko will stay fitter and be more able to take him on... and beat him.

As for the Federer matches, well, well done to Andy... I hate Federer as much as I dislike Murray so I'm not going to complain about it too much but Federer hasn't been having his best year this year so that wouldn't help but you can't take it away from Murray that he has been good on some occasions... I don't see him ever becoming "the one to beat" though as he simply isn't good enough... Murray playing his best tennis against Nadal, Federer or Djokovic playing theirs is no contest... Murray would lose all of them no question.

Hasn't been playing that well? He played well enough to beat Nadal in the last masters even before Murray beat him in the final. He also played well enough to get to the final on Toronto, The final of Cincenati, do alright in the Olympics and he's done alright in the US. I was talking over all about Federer not this year Andys hardly played him this year.

Do you actually have a clue what your talking about?

[Lovejoy]

Here is a prime example of the BBC 606 tosh that comes out:

"Murray is a natural, give him a year of hard work and he could easily become the man to beat!"

Where do these idiots come from!?!?!! Nadal is younger, fitter and FAR more skilled that Murray ever will be, Federer is still lightyears ahead of him and Djokovic is improving far faster than Murray and already has a Grand Slam under his belt!

All that and I still haven't even mentioned that Murray has no real weapons at all... his serve is fairly average really, you won't see him smacking aces down or even really using it to construct the points, his forehand is strong but nothing incredible and his backhand is nothing special either, his volleys I can't really comment about as I don't see him doing them that often but they look fairly strong when he does, his crazy drop-shots are lunacy sometimes and really let him down because they are so poor and at completely the wrong times, his attitude is pathetic, he looks like he is sloping around the court and everything is a real effort for him... and then when things go wrong he becomes abusive, aggressive and surly. I really don't see what there is to like about this guy at all... he is so miserable looking and even when he becomes pumped with emotion and drive, some of the characteristics that I love about Nadal and Serena, my two favourite players, he still looks like some crazy neanderthal with his huge square mouth and weird facial hair! Yes, they aren't really things that you should be taking into account when supporting a player but I'm sorry, they do play a huge part in what makes a player likable or not... and Murray, to me, is not AT ALL likable. What then infuriates me even more is the ridiculous support he gets from incredibly stupid Brits who think he's an amazing player and his own self belief when there is little cause for anyone including himself to think he can or could beat the Big 3 at the top of the game. Serena is another player who is VERY self confident and blames losses on herself not the opponents quality but after winning 8 singles Grand Slams, 9 doubles and mixed doubles Grand Slams, having been world number 1 and is still winning a hell of a lot, I think she kinda has the right to be, so good on her!! Murray and Murray fans need to wake up to the fact that so far, Murray has had a fairly simple draw compared to what it could have been... not facing a really top player who is consistently at the top in the first 5 rounds of a Slam is a fairly good draw so I would have expected him to have been making this stage!!! Nothing of what he has achieved so far is in any way shape or form incredible or showing of any improvement from earlier in the year... here's to hoping Nadal puts him in his place!!!

Yep people that settles it.

Murray is shit! Officially ! He'll never get anywhere neat the top 10, let alone reach 4th !

[Milky]

Murray = Legend. Already reached number 4 in the world, semi of US open, already won a ATP tournament, same as tim heman and still only 21.

Why bring Henman into it?

[Number 6]

Vamos Rafa!

[Manwell Pablo]

Why bring Henman into it?

Because he was the last British Number 1 perhaps.

[Uncle Albert]

Vamos Rafa!

Needs all the look he can get against a Brit who never gives up.

[Number 6]

Needs all the look he can get against a Brit who never gives up.

There's no such thing as 'luck' (or look).

[FilboFox]

Murray = Legend. Already reached number 4 in the world, semi of US open, already won a ATP tournament, same as tim heman and still only 21.

Hmm... British legend in your eyes maybe... Henman is still bigger and Murray will have to do a lot to overtake what he gave us at Wimbledon. As for in terms of world legendary status, absolutely not. He's a LONG way behind what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have already achieved and I can't ever see him becoming a legend of the game... can you really see him being likened to Borg, Federer, Sampras!?! If so, you are deluded.

[LeeCovFox]

Hmm... British legend in your eyes maybe... Henman is still bigger and Murray will have to do a lot to overtake what he gave us at Wimbledon. As for in terms of world legendary status, absolutely not. He's a LONG way behind what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have already achieved and I can't ever see him becoming a legend of the game... can you really see him being likened to Borg, Federer, Sampras!?! If so, you are deluded.

I can't see him winning countless Grand Slams, but he is good enough to win the odd one here and there. There surely cannot be any doubt about that? Whether he actually goes on to do it is another matter. Personally I see more shots in his game than I did in Henman's, and I was a Henman fan. He is a very talented player. He isn't as good as Nadal or Federer, but I don't think he is a million miles behind Djokovic.

The physical side has held Murray back. He had fitness problems, though he seems to have dealt with them now, and he hasn't developed as quickly physically as the aforementioned players. Partly that is his genetic make up, and partly that is his own fault for not having a properly tailored training regime. But that is another thing which he seems to be trying to combat.

Murray will be a force. I have heard nobody compare him to the likes of Federer, Sampras and Borg, and I would laugh at them if they did so, but your personal dislike of the lad seems to be getting in the way of any objectivity when it comes to his sporting prowess.

[FilboFox]

To say Murray is "little more than good" is absolutely ludicrous, tantamount to those morons who claimed Henman was a choker and a perpetual disappointment after spending many years in the top 10 and reaching 6 slam semi-finals. To be 4th in the World in any sport is the definition of "world-class".

Del Potro came off a run of 23 straight victories, oozing confidence and playing some unbelievable tennis, the guy is clearly going to be a top 10 player extremely soon. Murray had to adjust his style as trading blows with JMDP would have been absolutely useless, hence the abundance of slice backhands and changes of pace. In truth, Murray actually played a pretty average match with too many basic unforced errors and poor 1st service percentage and as such, for the argument claiming that JMDP would have won had it not been for 'mistakes' you can counter by mentioning the dreadful games Murray threw in after being a break ahead and cruising in sets 1 and 3.

No-one claims the guy is the finished article (i dont think he will ever be a world number 1 or multiple Grand Slam winner fwiw) but, to launch into the diatribe slamming anyone who claims he can win a grand slam is rather laughable considering he has now beaten every top 10 player except Nadal, won a Masters Series event and claimed 6 career titles already. To also claim a guy has 'no weapons' when his double handed backhand is possibly the best in the world is also rather confusing.

Edit: Also, mentioning Murray "scraping through" against Melzer ignores 2 things. Melzer was hitting crazy winners left right and centre for 2 sets, and also ignores the fact that Federer and Djokovic also "scraped through" against Andreev and Robredo respectively. This also fails to mention Nadal's struggles against the mighty talent Sam Querrey.

I do think Murray hate is understandable however. He is petulant (although has been far better recently) and the SKY (or more especially Mark Petchey) coverage and lauding of him is enough to wish an opponent to run through a 3 set demoliton job just to shut them up (Petchey claiming Del Potro's US Open was collapsing round him at 6-7 5-5 being a prime example of this nonsense)

Well I can't see how you can call Murray very good... I am yet to see him play consistently good tennis over more than a couple of sets... yes, he has made 4th in the world but I really don't know how! Yes, he's done well to get up there and well played to him. Perhaps its when I try to compare him to Nadal, Federer or Djokovic that makes him look much worse...

Del Potro came off 23 wins and that was excellent for him but I still think that he threw the match away and wasted a lot of great chances. Murray had his fair share of errors too (another reason why I thought he was very poor yesterday) but DP really let himself down at critical moments and lost great chances to take sets off Murray... Murray made mistakes but I don't think that they were as costly in the end BECAUSE DP was wasting his chances at the other end. Murray played better probably on the whole but I think that DP could have done better and won... especially with Murray's style of play which was poor and DP should have capitalised on it.

As for saying he has no chance, I don't think he has no chance... I realise that he has a small chance of winning this one BUT what I am opposed to is the way that so many Brits go off on one as soon as he scrapes through a thriller match and think that he'll definitely make the final!! On 606, people after the Melzer match were saying he'd make the final and this was his time to win!?!! He also doesn't have many weapons really... his backhand is OK, but I wouldn't have said that it was one of the best in the world or even close! Clearly you don't watch much tennis if you think that his is that amazing as there are MANY players who have better shots than him all over the court.

As for the other players scraping through... Andreev (considered to have one of the best forehands in the business and is a fairly damn good player), Robredo (still a very good player who was not that long ago world number 5) and Querry (one of the most talented youngsters on the tour and is really making his way up the rankings)... you can hardly compare those matches to Melzer who has NEVER made it past the 3rd round of a Slam, is an aging player and really hasn't ever been able to consistently challenge top players in top tournaments.

And we agree on the hatred so I don't need to argue that... although that is a more personal set of opinions than the other topics.

[FilboFox]

Hasn't been playing that well? He played well enough to beat Nadal in the last masters even before Murray beat him in the final. He also played well enough to get to the final on Toronto, The final of Cincenati, do alright in the Olympics and he's done alright in the US. I was talking over all about Federer not this year Andys hardly played him this year.

Do you actually have a clue what your talking about?

Yes, he beat Nadal which was a great results but you must be blind to the facts if you can't see that he has seriously lost momentum and form since the start of the year when he won the Australian Open and really looked like he'd be the one to take No 1 spot!!! He's still made it far in tournaments but then so has Federer and is everyone saying he's had a good year? NO, they are saying he needs to win the US Open to salvage anything from a terrible year... yes, he's expected to achieve more but Djokovic after the Oz Open was too and hasn't delivered.

As for Federer overall, well yes, he has got a good record over him which is impressive but 8 times out of 10 I'd say Federer would beat Murray because Murray is nowhere near his standard.

And yes, I do have a clue what I'm talking about... I've been watching tennis tournaments religiously for many many years now and have watched all kinds of matches from tens of different tournaments so for you to even ask that is fairly insulting and completely unfounded.

[FilboFox]

I can't see him winning countless Grand Slams, but he is good enough to win the odd one here and there. There surely cannot be any doubt about that? Whether he actually goes on to do it is another matter. Personally I see more shots in his game than I did in Henman's, and I was a Henman fan. He is a very talented player. He isn't as good as Nadal or Federer, but I don't think he is a million miles behind Djokovic.

The physical side has held Murray back. He had fitness problems, though he seems to have dealt with them now, and he hasn't developed as quickly physically as the aforementioned players. Partly that is his genetic make up, and partly that is his own fault for not having a properly tailored training regime. But that is another thing which he seems to be trying to combat.

Murray will be a force. I have heard nobody compare him to the likes of Federer, Sampras and Borg, and I would laugh at them if they did so, but your personal dislike of the lad seems to be getting in the way of any objectivity when it comes to his sporting prowess.

Fair enough... I think he might be able to get a Slam... maybe two but as Djokovic (same age but having already won a Slam and made the semi's of all the others) and Nadal continue to progress with 5 Slams, it will become much harder for Murray to keep it up... I think he's reached his physical strength now and it won't change much more (I could be wrong but I just don't see it) whilst Nadal is already miles stronger and fitter and Djokovic is still improving a lot I feel. He will be able to challenge in the top 10 and probably 5 for some time but I don't ever see him becoming a legend or someone who will be remembered particularly in 50 years time...

As for his shots, yes, he has more shots that Henman, he just needs time to get up to the achievements that Henman had. Tim made it to 4 Wimby semi's, and 1 US and French Open semi too... you can hardly compare the achievements of Murray to Tim yet though I'm sure that time will come. One thing is for certain, Murray is and will continue to be a top 5 player for a while... he won't be a "force" as such... just a very good player to beat. A force is someone outstanding who dominates the game like Federer or Nadal...

As for my dislike getting in the way... maybe... I can't hide the fact I really dislike him but I still don't think he'll ever be as good as the current top 3.

[FilboFox]

But sod Men's tennis that goes on for fecking hours and a lot of the time is very boring too! Lets be talking about women's tennis!!! It's not always that great either but it's still damn good when you get the likes of this:

Serena vs Venus, what a match! Power, Athleticism, Determination... superb! (7-6, 7-6 for those who didn't know... to Serena)

Come on Serena! You can do it!!!

[Manwell Pablo]

Yes, he beat Nadal which was a great results but you must be blind to the facts if you can't see that he has seriously lost momentum and form since the start of the year when he won the Australian Open and really looked like he'd be the one to take No 1 spot!!! He's still made it far in tournaments but then so has Federer and is everyone saying he's had a good year? NO, they are saying he needs to win the US Open to salvage anything from a terrible year... yes, he's expected to achieve more but Djokovic after the Oz Open was too and hasn't delivered.

As for Federer overall, well yes, he has got a good record over him which is impressive but 8 times out of 10 I'd say Federer would beat Murray because Murray is nowhere near his standard.

And yes, I do have a clue what I'm talking about... I've been watching tennis tournaments religiously for many many years now and have watched all kinds of matches from tens of different tournaments so for you to even ask that is fairly insulting and completely unfounded.

I don't even know where to start.

Lost momentum, how, I'm laughing here I really am, unless you consider momentum to be continuing on from the Australian Open and winning every tournament he enters I don't see how you can say that, he's had one bad tournament this year, wimbledon, aside from that he's had the sort of year people dream about, hence why he's still 3rd in the world. He's been a regular fixture in the later stages of every tournament.

Which leads me to my next point, Federer has not had a terrible year, you (insert suitable insult) Federer has had a terrible year by his standers. And his standard is total dominance, he's made the final of 2 grand slams and counting.

And this, this highlighted area here is the biggest joke of the lot, as his record clearly shows that Federer isn't capable of beating him 8/10. Nowhere near infact, and these results were taken when Federer was at his best, not in his current lackluster state.

Edited 4 September 2008 by Manwell Pablo

[martyn]

Im still wondering how Murray is 4th in the World with "no weapons". To say his double handed backhand (down the line especially) is "OK" then saying I obviously don't watch too much tennis is well, I cant be bothered to comprehend how stupid that is. Watch the 2007 Aussie Open match, Nadal v Murray and think about what you are saying.

I never said Melzer was a particularly great player, but watch the match, he was smashing winners from everywhere for 2 sets...it can happen to anybody (Djokovic losing to Kevin Anderson earlier this year springs to mind). And as for eschewing the virtues of Igor Andreev, who has done absolutely nothing of note in the game, no comment!

Murray is a World Class tennis player, like it or not. He has an average serve which can improve, a decent enough forehand (especially cross court) and if not the best, definitely the top 3 double handed backhands. Allign this with speed, fitness, court craft and an exceptional touch then as much as you may not like it, it's a formidable tennis player.

And yes, as for the Federer record. Murray Beat him in Cincinatti 7-5 6-4 at the peak of Federer's powers, and again in Dubai earlier this year when Fed had just come back from an illness. The Federer victory was Murray's first ever ATP final in 2005/6 (I can't remember) in Bangkok so to be honest, I think the Cincinatti result is the only one which could be taken as both players at near enough peak powers.

[FilboFox]

I don't even know where to start.

Lost momentum, how, I'm laughing here I really am, unless you consider momentum to be continuing on from the Australian Open and winning every tournament he enters I don't see how you can say that, he's had one bad tournament this year, wimbledon, aside from that he's had the sort of year people dream about, hence why he's still 3rd in the world. He's been a regular fixture in the later stages of every tournament.

Which leads me to my next point, Federer has not had a terrible year, you (insert suitable insult) Federer has had a terrible year by his standers. And his standard is total dominance, he's made the final of 2 grand slams and counting.

And this, this highlighted area here is the biggest joke of the lot, as his record clearly shows that Federer isn't capable of beating him 8/10. Nowhere near infact, and these results were taken when Federer was at his best, not in his current lackluster state.

Djokovic made it to the final of the US Open in 2007 and then won the Australian Open at the start of this year... he has had a very good year, no doubt, but from the start of the year, he hasn't achieved what many expected of him... he was at one point not too long after the Oz Open expected to go on and become number 1 and dominate, dubbed as the new Federer by many... he just didn't. Not a bad year by any stretch of the imagination, he just lost some of the momentum from the finals and winning tournaments at the start of the year. Let's not forget, losing to Murray was seen as a big upset... only goes to show how people around the world see Djokovic, rightly, as a better player than Murray.

It is general consensus that Federer has had a terrible year... and by that I meant by his standards you plank! Do you really think that I would have thought that what he has still achieved this year is terrible!??!!! As for the results against Murray, he may have lost a couple of times but there is no way that you can say that Murray is anywhere near Federer's standard!!! Just because a player has beaten another twice does not make him better! Look at Canas earlier in the year, he beat Federer twice in two tournaments... does that make him better? No, I didn't think so! SO, I would imagine that YES, Federer probably could beat him 8/10 times... especially over 5 sets at a Slam.

[Milky]

Rusedski made it to the final of the US in 97, so he's the best! *garf* *garf*

[FilboFox]

Im still wondering how Murray is 4th in the World with "no weapons". To say his double handed backhand (down the line especially) is "OK" then saying I obviously don't watch too much tennis is well, I cant be bothered to comprehend how stupid that is. Watch the 2007 Aussie Open match, Nadal v Murray and think about what you are saying.

I never said Melzer was a particularly great player, but watch the match, he was smashing winners from everywhere for 2 sets...it can happen to anybody (Djokovic losing to Kevin Anderson earlier this year springs to mind). And as for eschewing the virtues of Igor Andreev, who has done absolutely nothing of note in the game, no comment!

Murray is a World Class tennis player, like it or not. He has an average serve which can improve, a decent enough forehand (especially cross court) and if not the best, definitely the top 3 double handed backhands. Allign this with speed, fitness, court craft and an exceptional touch then as much as you may not like it, it's a formidable tennis player.

And yes, as for the Federer record. Murray Beat him in Cincinatti 7-5 6-4 at the peak of Federer's powers, and again in Dubai earlier this year when Fed had just come back from an illness. The Federer victory was Murray's first ever ATP final in 2005/6 (I can't remember) in Bangkok so to be honest, I think the Cincinatti result is the only one which could be taken as both players at near enough peak powers.

He doesn't have any weapons that would really trouble the top players... that too is accepted by most. His backhand, OK I was harsh, is very good, but it is not something that would normally trouble most top players greatly... he never rips endless winners off it and one match where it seems to work amazingly doesn't mean it is always like that! By your own admission, you can have one very good match where things go very well... not meaning it will always work like that.

OK then, Melzer did very well... but he still got two sets... Andreev was playing very well and also got two sets but is a more accomplished player than Melzer and so perhaps, it was less of a surprise he was doing well for once... Melzer really came out of nowhere.

Murray is a very good tennis player, I can't deny it but I still don't think that he will ever really be able to challenge the top 3 players on a consistent basis because they are better than him. Just look at how they play compared to him. You say he has an average serve, a decent forehand and a very good backhand... well, put that up against Nadal who has "two forehands" because they are so good and so difficult to play against and a good serve too... Federer who is a beast all over the court with excellent forehand, backhand and serve... and Djokovic who has a very powerful and accurate forehand and a very good backhand... not sure about his serve as I can't remember but I don't think it's too bad and could certainly improve as Murray's could. Now that you match them up... Murray doesn't look anywhere near as good as them... the one thing I will praise Murray on is his defense... he does seem to be able to get A LOT of balls back but that won't help him much against the top players who won't make the mistakes that others will.

Finally, speed? court craft? fitness? these are not things that I would normally point out as very outstanding qualities about Murray that often... he is fast which enables him to get the balls back but no faster than the top 3. He is on a par perhaps with Djoko for court craft but certainly Nadal and Federer outclass them both on that and fitness!?! He has had many problems with fitness and aside from Djoko who has looked tired here apart from last night, the top 2 once again have better fitness than him too!

Edited 5 September 2008 by FilboFox

[purpleronnie]

Hmm... British legend in your eyes maybe... Henman is still bigger and Murray will have to do a lot to overtake what he gave us at Wimbledon. As for in terms of world legendary status, absolutely not. He's a LONG way behind what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have already achieved and I can't ever see him becoming a legend of the game... can you really see him being likened to Borg, Federer, Sampras!?! If so, you are deluded.

British legend (or should it be scottish legend is what I meant, I doubt very much if he will make it much higher in the rankings.

Henman in wimbledon was given very good draws, yes he beat good players but usually not until the 5th round at the earliest, and always lost out in the end.

I admit I never liked henman, his fake looking passion and his spoon in the mouth upbringing always irratated me. Murray on the other had has already achieved a lot that Henman did and is only 21. I like his attitude and passion.

[Father Ted]

but I don't think he is a million miles behind Djokovic.

Djokovic is younger than Murray and a much better 'all-round' player.

In a couple of years, Djokovic will be at the same standard as Nadal is now (if not better when the age Nadal is now). Murray will for still years to come struggle to compete with Fed, Nadal and Nole.

[joely22]

Murray may not appear to have many "weapons" compared to his opponents but is very good tactically, a bit like Brad Gilbert.