Will murray win wimbledon?/ serina appreciation society

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

Re: Will murray win wimbledon?

Good, now he can go back to being a useless, obnoxious scotch twat ....

I couldn't have put it better myself!

 

[PoolHustler]

Re: Will murray win wimbledon?

I think he can still win it..................................

Without a doubt.

 

[Ntini77]

Re: Will murray win wimbledon?

He is a very good player but he won't be a great player.

His game just seems to be lacking that "special" ingredient; mindblowing consistency. Sampras had it, Borg had it, Federer has it. Murray doesn't.

He reminds me in some ways of McEnroe and Agassi in that they were often at the their best when the chips were down. It's just that they were better tennis players on the big occasion.

McEnroe seemed to go through this whole soap opera thing when he was at his peak. He would win a set or two and then would invariably lose the next, almost as if he had to do it to get angry at himself and pysche himself up. Then he would get it together again and play the most magnificent shots.

I can see that in Murray too, but he doesn't have the same ability to really turn a match around once it starts to get beyond him.

I agree with you apart from the last part, his match against Gasquet last year at Wimbledon showed he has great fighting spirit.

I still think he'll win 3 or 4 slams.

 

[mackenzie]

Re: Will murray win wimbledon?

He is a very good player but he won't be a great player.

His game just seems to be lacking that "special" ingredient; mindblowing consistency. Sampras had it, Borg had it, Federer has it. Murray doesn't.

He reminds me in some ways of McEnroe and Agassi in that they were often at the their best when the chips were down. It's just that they were better tennis players on the big occasion.

McEnroe seemed to go through this whole soap opera thing when he was at his peak. He would win a set or two and then would invariably lose the next, almost as if he had to do it to get angry at himself and pysche himself up. Then he would get it together again and play the most magnificent shots.

I can see that in Murray too, but he doesn't have the same ability to really turn a match around once it starts to get beyond him.

I agree with you apart from the last part, his match against Gasquet last year at Wimbledon showed he has great fighting spirit.

I still think he'll win 3 or 4 slams.

Not sure tbh. I think the will is undoubtedly there but that extra talent isn't.

The big question is whether he is now at his peak, talent and fitness wise, or whether it is still to be developed. 22 may seem young, but a tennis player's career can be over by their late 20's.

 

[Ntini77]

Re: Will murray win wimbledon?

He is a very good player but he won't be a great player.

His game just seems to be lacking that "special" ingredient; mindblowing consistency. Sampras had it, Borg had it, Federer has it. Murray doesn't.

He reminds me in some ways of McEnroe and Agassi in that they were often at the their best when the chips were down. It's just that they were better tennis players on the big occasion.

McEnroe seemed to go through this whole soap opera thing when he was at his peak. He would win a set or two and then would invariably lose the next, almost as if he had to do it to get angry at himself and pysche himself up. Then he would get it together again and play the most magnificent shots.

I can see that in Murray too, but he doesn't have the same ability to really turn a match around once it starts to get beyond him.

I agree with you apart from the last part, his match against Gasquet last year at Wimbledon showed he has great fighting spirit.

I still think he'll win 3 or 4 slams.

Not sure tbh. I think the will is undoubtedly there but that extra talent isn't.

The big question is whether he is now at his peak, talent and fitness wise, or whether it is still to be developed. 22 may seem young, but a tennis player's career can be over by their late 20's.

Very true, especially nowadays.

I only see two real problems in Murray's game, his second serve and he's sometimes nowhere near attacking enough, should come to the net more.

 

[Bigga]

Re: Will murray win wimbledon?

He is a very good player but he won't be a great player.

His game just seems to be lacking that "special" ingredient; mindblowing consistency. Sampras had it, Borg had it, Federer has it. Murray doesn't.

He reminds me in some ways of McEnroe and Agassi in that they were often at the their best when the chips were down. It's just that they were better tennis players on the big occasion.

McEnroe seemed to go through this whole soap opera thing when he was at his peak. He would win a set or two and then would invariably lose the next, almost as if he had to do it to get angry at himself and pysche himself up. Then he would get it together again and play the most magnificent shots.

I can see that in Murray too, but he doesn't have the same ability to really turn a match around once it starts to get beyond him.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute! The kid's 22!! He's nowhere near his peak. In fact, have you managed to decipher his game, at all?

It takes him shorter periods now, to analyse the breaking down of opponents games after a defeat. If they meet in the US Open, it will be TOTALLY different(and not just because of the surface. Grass is not Murray's best, yet) Today, he pressured himself and Roddick re-found form he hadn't had for 4 years!

I'll say Murray switches play more than anybody else in the game, including The Mighty Feds.

 

[mackenzie]

Re: Will murray win wimbledon?

He is a very good player but he won't be a great player.

His game just seems to be lacking that "special" ingredient; mindblowing consistency. Sampras had it, Borg had it, Federer has it. Murray doesn't.

He reminds me in some ways of McEnroe and Agassi in that they were often at the their best when the chips were down. It's just that they were better tennis players on the big occasion.

McEnroe seemed to go through this whole soap opera thing when he was at his peak. He would win a set or two and then would invariably lose the next, almost as if he had to do it to get angry at himself and pysche himself up. Then he would get it together again and play the most magnificent shots.

I can see that in Murray too, but he doesn't have the same ability to really turn a match around once it starts to get beyond him.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute! The kid's 22!! He's nowhere near his peak. In fact, have you managed to decipher his game, at all?

It takes him shorter periods now, to analyse the breaking down of opponents games after a defeat. If they meet in the US Open, it will be TOTALLY different(and not just because of the surface. Grass is not Murray's best, yet) Today, he pressured himself and Roddick re-found form he hadn't had for 4 years!

I'll say Murray switches play more than anybody else in the game, including The Mighty Feds.

Murray is nowhere near as good as Federer and never will be. And I stand by what I said. His game lacks something.

Been watching men's tennis for years. Murray will never be a "great." And many tennis players had won a Grand Slam Final at his age.

As I said earlier, he may mature and hit his peak in the next couple of years but the lad he played today had already won the US Open at the age of 20.

 

[Ntini77]

Re: Will murray win wimbledon?

He is a very good player but he won't be a great player.

His game just seems to be lacking that "special" ingredient; mindblowing consistency. Sampras had it, Borg had it, Federer has it. Murray doesn't.

He reminds me in some ways of McEnroe and Agassi in that they were often at the their best when the chips were down. It's just that they were better tennis players on the big occasion.

McEnroe seemed to go through this whole soap opera thing when he was at his peak. He would win a set or two and then would invariably lose the next, almost as if he had to do it to get angry at himself and pysche himself up. Then he would get it together again and play the most magnificent shots.

I can see that in Murray too, but he doesn't have the same ability to really turn a match around once it starts to get beyond him.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute! The kid's 22!! He's nowhere near his peak. In fact, have you managed to decipher his game, at all?

It takes him shorter periods now, to analyse the breaking down of opponents games after a defeat. If they meet in the US Open, it will be TOTALLY different(and not just because of the surface. Grass is not Murray's best, yet) Today, he pressured himself and Roddick re-found form he hadn't had for 4 years!

I'll say Murray switches play more than anybody else in the game, including The Mighty Feds.

Murray is nowhere near as good as Federer and never will be. And I stand by what I said. His game lacks something.

Been watching men's tennis for years. Murray will never be a "great." And many tennis players had won a Grand Slam Final at his age.

As I said earlier, he may mature and hit his peak in the next couple of years but the lad he played today had already won the US Open at the age of 20.

I agree that he'll never be as good as Federer but who will be ?

 

[mackenzie]

Re: Will murray win wimbledon?

He is a very good player but he won't be a great player.

His game just seems to be lacking that "special" ingredient; mindblowing consistency. Sampras had it, Borg had it, Federer has it. Murray doesn't.

He reminds me in some ways of McEnroe and Agassi in that they were often at the their best when the chips were down. It's just that they were better tennis players on the big occasion.

McEnroe seemed to go through this whole soap opera thing when he was at his peak. He would win a set or two and then would invariably lose the next, almost as if he had to do it to get angry at himself and pysche himself up. Then he would get it together again and play the most magnificent shots.

I can see that in Murray too, but he doesn't have the same ability to really turn a match around once it starts to get beyond him.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute! The kid's 22!! He's nowhere near his peak. In fact, have you managed to decipher his game, at all?

It takes him shorter periods now, to analyse the breaking down of opponents games after a defeat. If they meet in the US Open, it will be TOTALLY different(and not just because of the surface. Grass is not Murray's best, yet) Today, he pressured himself and Roddick re-found form he hadn't had for 4 years!

I'll say Murray switches play more than anybody else in the game, including The Mighty Feds.

Murray is nowhere near as good as Federer and never will be. And I stand by what I said. His game lacks something.

Been watching men's tennis for years. Murray will never be a "great." And many tennis players had won a Grand Slam Final at his age.

As I said earlier, he may mature and hit his peak in the next couple of years but the lad he played today had already won the US Open at the age of 20.

I agree that he'll never be as good as Federer but who will be ?

I just don't get this he is only 22 business. Sampras had won THREE grand slam finals by the same age.

And it wasn't me who introduced comparisons between Murray and Federer, it was Bigga.

 

[Bigga]

Re: Will murray win wimbledon?

He is a very good player but he won't be a great player.

His game just seems to be lacking that "special" ingredient; mindblowing consistency. Sampras had it, Borg had it, Federer has it. Murray doesn't.

He reminds me in some ways of McEnroe and Agassi in that they were often at the their best when the chips were down. It's just that they were better tennis players on the big occasion.

McEnroe seemed to go through this whole soap opera thing when he was at his peak. He would win a set or two and then would invariably lose the next, almost as if he had to do it to get angry at himself and pysche himself up. Then he would get it together again and play the most magnificent shots.

I can see that in Murray too, but he doesn't have the same ability to really turn a match around once it starts to get beyond him.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute! The kid's 22!! He's nowhere near his peak. In fact, have you managed to decipher his game, at all?

It takes him shorter periods now, to analyse the breaking down of opponents games after a defeat. If they meet in the US Open, it will be TOTALLY different(and not just because of the surface. Grass is not Murray's best, yet) Today, he pressured himself and Roddick re-found form he hadn't had for 4 years!

I'll say Murray switches play more than anybody else in the game, including The Mighty Feds.

Murray is nowhere near as good as Federer and never will be. And I stand by what I said. His game lacks something.

Been watching men's tennis for years. Murray will never be a "great." And many tennis players had won a Grand Slam Final at his age.

As I said earlier, he may mature and hit his peak in the next couple of years but the lad he played today had already won the US Open at the age of 20.

You seem to forget that people like Andy Roddick(I'll throw in Gustavo Kuerten and Marat Safin) were World No1's in a period of relative poor quality in tennis, enabling them in win titles. Murray's game, in amongst the current crop of excellent talent, has gathered at an amazing speed and he will add more variety, more consistently, making him more formidable. Feds has already gone on record saying he hates playing Murray! And to think Nadal should have been the only one to fall in to that particular category, is high praise indeed, from the Master.