Re: Why didn't Murray win the last 2 slams?

SliceAndDice wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:32 am, Professor X <sueboka...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:22 am, SliceAndDice <slice.di...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jul 7, 1:17 am, Professor X <sueboka...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:23 am, SliceAndDice <visha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:18 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SliceAndDice wrote:
On Jul 6, 7:42 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:23 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
His hero Nadal was out of the way.
He owns everybody else worth owning, allegedly.
So what went wrong?
Will something go wrong at his favorite event, the US Open? Or will
Murray finally deliver?
We need some Tier One analysis to inspect Murray's potential.
How many slam finals? How many slams? When will he reach #1? How long
will he stay #1?
--
Cheers,
vc
Murray was never that good to begin with - ppl got excited by his
victories over a fatigued and tired Nadal at the US Open (after Nadal
had played non-stop just about every week from the FO onwards) and in
tune-ups over Federer which clearly Fed doesn't care about at this
stage of his career. As I said a few months ago, he is like the 2nd
coming of Chang - although I am beginning to think that might be a
little unfair to Chang since he beat some great players for his sole
FO win. The similarity will be that in just about every slam he will
run into players on a hot streak (like Verdasco, Gonzo and Roddick)
who would be too good for him on the day. A career high ranking of #2
and 0/1 slams is more like his limit...- Hide quoted text -
Murray is only 22. He also has way more weapons than Chang. He may not
have a Federer/Nadal career but I see a few slams for him, if he
starts using the tools in his arsenal more effectively.
As for his victory over Nadal at the Open, it was brilliantly
constructed and fully deserved. These fatigued/tired excuses for Nadal
are just that..tired.
The key phrase is "starts using the tools in his arsenal more
effectively". Murray seems to have equated his success so far to the way
he plays tennis. Maybe he will listen to critics like Federer and
Stefanki and step up to his potential. I hope so. He can play some good
tennis as he showed in defeating Nadal in the SF.
Nadal is RahimAsif's god of tennis and only loses when he is well below
his best. Nadal, according to RahimAsif, will win the CYGS every year if
he stays healthy.
I am not sure why Nadal just doesn't perform at his "potential" and why
he needs so many excuses.
--
And now Becker/Laver chime in :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8134987.stm
Three-time Wimbledon singles champion Boris Becker told BBC Radio 5
Live's Sportsweek: "I believe Andy needs to be a little more
aggressive from the baseline because the big matches are won by big
shots but he has had a very good tournament, he's only just turned 22
and he'll be fighting for Grand Slam titles for many years to come."
And Rod Laver, who triumphed in the men's final at SW19 four times in
the 1960s, agreed, and stated: "Andy has to be able to play steady,
not defensively necessarily but keeping the ball rolling, but he has
access to a great backhand, which he hits extremely well down the line
and he probably didn't do as much of that as he could against Roddick.
The rest of his game stayed defensive and he could have pushed and
used his groundstrokes a little more severely."
This is nonsense, Murray hit way more winners than Roddick in the
match. He did not play a passive game, I have already analysed why he
lost.
Forgive me if I choose to regard Becker/Laver's analysis over yours.
How many Wimbledons have you won again?
Being an ex great player does not make you a great analyst. Look at
the top football and Tennis coaches -- rarely are they guys who have
been top players. In fact sometimes I am shocked by the dearth of
Tennis knowledge ex-pros exibit.- Hide quoted text -


LOL! Even if I agree with you (which I do not), how about Stefanki?
His opinion does not matter either? He is only one of the top tennis
coaches in the world.


Who came up with the plan to beat Murray that Roddick implemeted? Stefanki. It is stupid to ignore his analysis.

--
Cheers,

vc
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why didnt Murray win the last 2 slams?
    ... The similarity will be that in just about every slam he will ... Murray is only 22. ... tennis as he showed in defeating Nadal in the SF. ... He did not play a passive game, I have already analysed why he ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Why didnt Murray win the last 2 slams?
    ... The similarity will be that in just about every slam he will ... Murray is only 22. ... tennis as he showed in defeating Nadal in the SF. ... Even if I agree with you, how about Stefanki? ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Why didnt Murray win the last 2 slams?
    ... The similarity will be that in just about every slam he will ... Murray is only 22. ... tennis as he showed in defeating Nadal in the SF. ... and he probably didn't do as much of that as he could against Roddick. ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Andy Murrays back-hand swipe at tennis pundits
    ... HE IS arguably Britain's best tennis player since the war, ... Boris Becker and John McEnroe two of the top Grand Slam figures to help out ... But she said she hoped Murray would take down his tweet and he needed to ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Clearly Nadal
    ... day sat/sun and then again mon + nadal winning the Chinese slam that fed ... What happened at this USO is that "he finished sat morn and murray/ ... it was what I posted about his match with Murray. ... Federer didn't play ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)