Wimbledon 2011

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well deserved win and he showed that even Nadal can wobble under pressure.

Djokovic should act as an inspiration to Andy Murray who was ahead of him a year ago. I don't think Andy has peaked yet and to say he isn't good enough to win a Slam is nonsense. He has more ability than many who have won them and you never know how a draw can open up. His best bet though is the hard courts where I'd put him on close to a par with the top 3.

Depends how far back you go, but I'd struggle to find "many" who've won in the last ten years.

Wouldn't it worry you as a Murray fan that he was ahead of Djokovic a year ago and is now so far behind? Not knocking him btw, AM does great with what he has - just don't think it's quite enough to be confident about him becoming a top top player (as opposed to just a top player). Happy to be proved wrong if he gets better.

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Depends how far back you go, but I'd struggle to find "many" who've won in the last ten years.

Wouldn't it worry you as a Murray fan that he was ahead of Djokovic a year ago and is now so far behind? Not knocking him btw, AM does great with what he has - just don't think it's quite enough to be confident about him becoming a top top player (as opposed to just a top player). Happy to be proved wrong if he gets better.

Murray is clearly not in the same league as Nadal or Federer, which is no disgrace as they are two of the all time greats not just of their generation but of ANY generation.

However, I would suggest that he is better than the following players who have won at least one Grand Slam in the past 10 years;

Thomas Johansson
Albert Costa
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Gaston Gaudio
Andy Roddick
Marat Safin

A lot of these guys were fortunate in that they took advantage of a brief lull in men's tennis, which was around the time of when guys like Sampras and Agassi, who had dominated the sport in the 1990s, were coming to the end of their careers but it was just before Federer started to really dominate.

Andy Murray doesn't have that luxury. He broke through to the senior tour, pretty much at the height of Federer's success and he is only a year younger than Nadal.

And now he is seeing a third player in Djokovic have an unbelievable year.

I would suggest that men's tennis is in the strongest position that it has been in for about 30 years, since Borg, McEnroe and Connors were at the top of the rankings.

There is no doubt that Andy Murray has the ability to win a Grand Slam, it's just sometimes I believe his temperament gets in the way. He was unfortunate on Friday that Nadal played a near faultless match against him from the second set onwards. If Nadal had played against Murray how he played today then I believe Murray would have been in the Wimbledon final instead of Nadal.

I think Finchster is correct to say that the US Open represents the best chance for Murray to win a Major. He had a great French Open this year but with Nadal around, it's going to be very difficult for him to ever win that. I think he has a shot at winning Wimbledon but I don't think the hype that surrounds him for the whole fortnight is really helpful.

I think he also has a chance at the Australian Open, he's obviously been to the final there on two occasions, but I think he just loves being in America, he is relaxed in that environment and his game is suited to the hard courts.

[Greentinted]

Great stuff as ever FH, the annual reporting on events at SW19 are taking on a wee life of their own on here.
Always enjoy reading your updates and observations during Wimbermania.

[hibsbollah]

Agree with the above...Falkirk has been spot on throughout. It also seems to me that we're in a new golden age similar to the whole McEnroe Borg Connors thing in the early 80s. The current top 4 are arguably in the top 5 of the last 15/20 years along with Sampras. Murray is unlucky to be playing in possibly the most competitive era EVER. The standard of the top tennis players at the moment is incredible.

[lapsedhibee]

Finchster and Falkirk:

You both say that the US Open is Murray's best chance of winning a Slam.

Would you also say that he will win the US Open?

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Finchster and Falkirk:

You both say that the US Open is Murray's best chance of winning a Slam.

Would you also say that he will win the US Open?

I wouldn't say that with any degree of confidence, purely because of what I have already said.

This is a golden era for men's tennis at the minute and whilst Roger Federer may be starting his descent from the very top, there's still Nadal, Djokovic and even del Potro who are all roughly about the same age and who have all got Grand Slam titles under their belt. It will be tough for Murray but he's more than capable.

Murray has the ability to win a Grand Slam, I have no doubts about that whatsoever. You only need to look at his Grand Slam results in recent years to see that (he has made at least the quarter finals in 9 out of the last 13 Grand Slams), but the longer he goes without winning one, psychologically, it will start to get harder for him. He has to believe that he can win against Nadal and Djokovic at the business end of Grand Slams. Unfortunately, he and his coaching team can do all the practice sessions and put in all the preparation that they want but if Murray, in his mind, does not truly believe that he can go out and compete with those guys over five sets and three or four hours then he has no chance.

I always remember listening to John McEnroe talking a few years ago during Wimbledon and he was giving his thoughts on this very subject and what he said was very true. Whilst you do need skill and you do need to practice for hours on end to become a top tennis player, he said that about 85% of what is required to become a great tennis player comes from the mind.

The guy's only just turned 24 years of age so time is still on his side and whilst I would still like to think that he will win at least one, the standards are so high just now in men's tennis that I don't think anyone can be sure of winning a Grand Slam.

Take Wimbledon as an example. Everyone thought that Federer was a good bet for winning it this year, they saw how good he had been at the French Open and they thought he was playing the best tennis in the early rounds of the tournament.

Then he goes out to Tsonga then all of a sudden it's Nadal who's the favourite. No-one really spoke about Djokovic, despite the amazing year he has had so far. A lot of people had commented on how average he had been leading up to the final but he gets there and then absolutely blows the defending champion away.

Maybe that will happen with Murray. I certainly hope so.

[Shrekko]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Depends how far back you go, but I'd struggle to find "many" who've won in the last ten years.

Wouldn't it worry you as a Murray fan that he was ahead of Djokovic a year ago and is now so far behind? Not knocking him btw, AM does great with what he has - just don't think it's quite enough to be confident about him becoming a top top player (as opposed to just a top player). Happy to be proved wrong if he gets better.

FH has already listed a lot of inferior players who have won Grand Slams recently. There's one or 2 others and Del Potro has also done it very recently and I'd have him on a par with Murray.

I've said already that Djokovic has shown Murray the level of improvement that is still possible. When Murray is on top of his game- first set v Nadal an example, he's as good as ANYONE. What he has to improve is on the mental side of the game in order to be able to maintain that level for longer periods and on big points in big matches. He's not a bottler, he just allows frustration to get the better of him too often.

I'm not saying he will win a Slam I'm saying he's good enough in terms of pure tennis ability. Will he win the US? I'd say Djokovic is favourite but I fully expect Murray to be extremely competitive if he plays to his ability- a place in the final would not surprise me although he may well be in Djokovic's half of the draw if they're seeded 1 and 4.

If Murray never wins a Slam or even retired tomorrow he'd have nothing to be ashamed of. Some of the expert criticism he gets can be justified but some of it from people who in the main want him to fail is ridiculous. He's a fantastic talent that has been in the top 5 in the world for a good 3/4 years and will probably remain there for many years to come in a golden age of tennis.

[lapsedhibee]

Ok not sure if Safin had 'less ability' than Murray but I haven't seen some of those listed play. So, fair enough, it's quite possible for players outside the top echelon to win major tournaments.

Murray has definitely nothing to be ashamed of if he doesn't win a Slam. I think he is outside the top echelon - think the idea of a current 'big four' is probably a British media thing because he's world number four. There's really a big three and then the rest - John Lloyd at Wimbers was at pains to correct the thinking that only one of the four would win the tournament, pointing out that Soderling, for example, had just as much chance as Murray. Don't think that's Lloydy wanting him to fail, just a bit (welcome) realism creeping in.

Personally don't think it would be his temperament preventing him from winning a Slam or series of Slams, it would be his game. Being primarily a counterpuncher makes it relatively easy for him to dominate games where opponents are off top form, but he doesn't (yet?) have enough attacking weapons to dominate them if they're on top form.

Also not sure if he does have time on his side. Unless Nadal and Djokovic retire soon, he is looking at several more years of physically punishing tennis against these guys. Will his bipartite patella stand up to it?

Anyway good luck Andy at the US Open. Is it on council tellybox this year?

[Shrekko]

I agree he's not in the top echelon at present but the 'big 3' is a recent thing as well. Murray was comfortably ahead of Djokovic in the rankings about 12 months ago. The point I keep making is that Murray COULD make that jump too as he is of similar pure tennis ability. Don't get me wrong though- I have the same doubts, but yes he does have time as he is still developing his game and not peaked yet. Did ANYONE see Djokovic playing at this level a year ago? He seemed to spend most of his time retiring from games he was losing or having trouble with his contact lenses!

I would take issue with Lloyds comment's if that's what he said though as Murray is clearly 4th best at present. 3 Grand Slams this season- 1 final and 2 semi's, says enough for me.

My personal opinion is that he's gone through too many coaching set-ups and some of them I don't believe are right for him. If anyone could have got the mental side of his game right it was Brad Gilbert and it worries me that he only stuck with him for a year or 2.

...and no, the US Open will be on Sky sadly.

[hibee62]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Murray is clearly not in the same league as Nadal or Federer, which is no disgrace as they are two of the all time greats not just of their generation but of ANY generation.

However, I would suggest that he is better than the following players who have won at least one Grand Slam in the past 10 years;

Thomas Johansson
Albert Costa
Juan Carlos Ferrero
Gaston Gaudio
Andy Roddick
Marat Safin

A lot of these guys were fortunate in that they took advantage of a brief lull in men's tennis, which was around the time of when guys like Sampras and Agassi, who had dominated the sport in the 1990s, were coming to the end of their careers but it was just before Federer started to really dominate.

Andy Murray doesn't have that luxury. He broke through to the senior tour, pretty much at the height of Federer's success and he is only a year younger than Nadal.

And now he is seeing a third player in Djokovic have an unbelievable year.

I would suggest that men's tennis is in the strongest position that it has been in for about 30 years, since Borg, McEnroe and Connors were at the top of the rankings.

There is no doubt that Andy Murray has the ability to win a Grand Slam, it's just sometimes I believe his temperament gets in the way. He was unfortunate on Friday that Nadal played a near faultless match against him from the second set onwards. If Nadal had played against Murray how he played today then I believe Murray would have been in the Wimbledon final instead of Nadal.

I think Finchster is correct to say that the US Open represents the best chance for Murray to win a Major. He had a great French Open this year but with Nadal around, it's going to be very difficult for him to ever win that. I think he has a shot at winning Wimbledon but I don't think the hype that surrounds him for the whole fortnight is really helpful.

I think he also has a chance at the Australian Open, he's obviously been to the final there on two occasions, but I think he just loves being in America, he is relaxed in that environment and his game is suited to the hard courts.

Agree entirely, add in Lleyton hewitt to the list. The fact is that players much much worse than Murray have won them in the gap between McEnroe et al and Sampras then Sampras and Federer. Unfortunately, no such break seems forthcoming since Nadal is the same age as AM so i have serious doubts Murray will get the 1 or 2 he deserves. Perhaps he will be the best player never to win one? I can't think of many others.

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ok not sure if Safin had 'less ability' than Murray but I haven't seen some of those listed play. So, fair enough, it's quite possible for players outside the top echelon to win major tournaments.

Murray has definitely nothing to be ashamed of if he doesn't win a Slam. I think he is outside the top echelon - think the idea of a current 'big four' is probably a British media thing because he's world number four. There's really a big three and then the rest - John Lloyd at Wimbers was at pains to correct the thinking that only one of the four would win the tournament, pointing out that Soderling, for example, had just as much chance as Murray. Don't think that's Lloydy wanting him to fail, just a bit (welcome) realism creeping in.

Personally don't think it would be his temperament preventing him from winning a Slam or series of Slams, it would be his game. Being primarily a counterpuncher makes it relatively easy for him to dominate games where opponents are off top form, but he doesn't (yet?) have enough attacking weapons to dominate them if they're on top form.

Also not sure if he does have time on his side. Unless Nadal and Djokovic retire soon, he is looking at several more years of physically punishing tennis against these guys. Will his bipartite patella stand up to it?

Anyway good luck Andy at the US Open. Is it on council tellybox this year?

Nope, Sky's got exclusive rights to the US Open in the UK.

The Australian Open and French Open are primarily on Eurosport but the BBC do show the finals and some matches of the French Open are on the BBC red button as well.

And obviously Wimbledon is exclusively on the BBC.

[Removed]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nope, Sky's got exclusive rights to the US Open in the UK.

The Australian Open and French Open are primarily on Eurosport but the BBC do show the finals and some matches of the French Open are on the BBC red button as well.

And obviously Wimbledon is exclusively on the BBC.

I think Wimbledon should be on Sky as well

[Sir David Gray]

Andy Murray will actually equal an unenviable record if he loses in his next Grand Slam final.

Since the Open Era began in 1968, only Ivan Lendl has lost in the first four Grand Slam final appearances that he made. Fortunately for Murray, Lendl did go on to win 8 majors in his career.

He already shares a record with Tony Roche as being the only other player to make three finals or more and not go on to win one in the Open Era (although Roche did win one in the pre-Open Era period).

Stats for other players;

Roger Federer 23 finals (16 wins, 7 losses)
Ivan Lendl 19 finals (8 wins, 11 losses) LOST FIRST FOUR FINALS.
Pete Sampras 18 finals (14 wins, 4 losses)
Bjorn Borg 16 finals (11 wins, 5 losses)
Jimmy Connors 15 finals (8 wins, 7 losses)
Andre Agassi 15 finals (8 wins, 7 losses) LOST FIRST THREE FINALS.
Rafael Nadal 13 finals (10 wins, 3 losses)
John McEnroe 11 finals (7 wins, 4 losses)
Mats Wilander 11 finals (7 wins, 4 losses)
Stefan Edberg 11 finals (6 wins, 5 losses)
Boris Becker 10 finals (6 wins, 4 losses)
Ken Rosewall 8 finals (4 wins, 4 losses)
Guillermo Vilas 8 finals (4 wins, 4 losses) LOST FIRST TWO FINALS.
Jim Courier 7 finals (4 wins, 3 losses)
John Newcombe 7 finals (5 wins, 2 losses) LOST FIRST FINAL.
Rod Laver 6 finals (5 wins, 1 loss) LOST FIRST FINAL.
Arthur Ashe 5 finals (3 wins, 2 losses)
Jan Kodes 5 finals (3 wins, 2 losses)
Novak Djokovic 5 finals (3 wins, 2 losses) LOST FIRST FINAL.
Ilie Nastase 5 finals (2 wins, 3 losses) LOST FIRST TWO FINALS.
Andy Roddick 5 finals (1 win, 4 losses)
Marat Safin 4 finals (2 wins, 2 losses)
Pat Rafter 4 finals (2 wins, 2 losses)
Lleyton Hewitt 4 finals (2 wins, 2 losses)
Michael Chang 4 finals (1 win, 3 losses)
Goran Ivanisevic 4 finals (1 win, 3 losses) LOST FIRST THREE FINALS.
Gustavo Kuerten 3 finals (3 wins, 0 losses)
Sergi Bruguera 3 finals (2 wins, 1 loss)
Yevgeny Kafelnikov 3 finals (2 wins, 1 loss)
Stan Smith 3 finals (2 wins, 1 loss) LOST FIRST FINAL.
Vitas Gerulaitis 3 finals (1 win, 2 losses)
Pat Cash 3 finals (1 win, 2 losses) LOST FIRST FINAL.
Michael Stich 3 finals (1 win, 2 losses)
Juan Carlos Ferrero 3 finals (1 win, 2 losses) LOST FIRST FINAL.
Tony Roche 3 finals (0 wins, 3 losses)
Andy Murray 3 finals (0 wins, 3 losses)
Johan Kriek 2 finals (2 wins, 0 losses)
Roscoe Tanner 2 finals (1 win, 1 loss)
Petr Korda 2 finals (1 win, 1 loss) LOST FIRST FINAL.
Andres Gimeno 2 finals (1 win, 1 loss) LOST FIRST FINAL.
Manuel Orantes 2 finals (1 win, 1 loss) LOST FIRST FINAL.
Carlos Moya 2 finals (1 win, 1 loss) LOST FIRST FINAL.
Cedric Pioline 2 finals (0 wins, 2 losses)
Todd Martin 2 finals (0 wins, 2 losses)
Steve Denton 2 finals (0 wins, 2 losses)
Kevin Curren 2 finals (0 wins, 2 losses)
Miroslav Mecir 2 finals (0 wins, 2 losses)
Alex Corretja 2 finals (0 wins, 2 losses)
Robin Soderling 2 finals (0 wins, 2 losses)
Mark Philippoussis 2 finals (0 wins, 2 losses)
Mark Edmondson 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Adriano Panatta 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Brian Teacher 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Yannick Noah 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Andres Gomez 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Thomas Muster 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Richard Krajicek 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Thomas Johansson 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Albert Costa 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Gaston Gaudio 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Juan Martin del Potro 1 final (1 win, 0 losses)
Tom Okker 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Dick Crealy 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Zeljko Franulovic 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Malcolm Anderson 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Patrick Proisy 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Onny Parun 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Nikola Pilic 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Alex Metreveli 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Phil Dent 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Harold Solomon 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Brian Gottfried 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
John Lloyd 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
John Marks 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Victor Pecci 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
John Sadri 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Kim Warwick 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Chris Lewis 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Mikael Pernfors 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Henri Leconte 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Alberto Berasategui 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
MaliVai Washington 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Greg Rusedski 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Marcelo Rios 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Thomas Enqvist 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Andriy Medvedev 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Magnus Norman 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Arnaud Clement 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
David Nalbandian 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Rainer Schuettler 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Martin Verkerk 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Guillermo Coria 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Mariano Puerta 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Marcos Baghdatis 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Fernando Gonzalez 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)
Tomas Berdych 1 final (0 wins, 1 loss)

Yes, I am sad!

[Removed]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, I am sad!

Did you really work that out or just read about it somewhere

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did you really work that out or just read about it somewhere

I don't know whether it's best to be honest about this answer or not!

I actually did work it all out myself. If you see the time of that post, it was 1.30am. I started writing the post at about 10pm that night and only intended to include the top players in the stats but I got a bit carried away and about three hours later, I had included the whole lot!

I must admit that I am a bit OCD when it comes to sport related stats!