I did say I had my doubts about Murray winning against Nadal and once again he bottled it. He was comfortably ahead in the match one set up and two games up in the second with Nadal not even at the races. Once again he totally lost concentration and let Nadal back in. No way did Nadal play his way back into the match, Murray surrendered it. From that point every single one of us watching it said the same, that's it that's game over. Murray is a smashing player but he does not have the killer instinct in the Gran Slam events and loses concentration far too easily. Probably, although better than Henman obviously, will turn out the same and does not have what is required to win in the biggies. That's not a criticism, jut fact. Really hope he csn do it though at some point.
I'm stunned that the top ranked player in the tournament beat the 4th ranked player. I can't get my head round it.
Bollocks. Nadal was being totally outplayed. No. 4 seeds have beaten top seeds in the past and often. Even Becker in 1985 was not even seeded. If you're good enough you can beat those above you as Murray has proved in the smaller tournaments. When it comes to the big ones though he doe not have what is required.
That's as may be but anyone watching that match yesterday could see that Murray had the beating of Nadal right up to that point where he over hit the shot. At that moment you just knew what was coming next. Nadal himself said that was the turning point. Sadly, that's the difference between Murray and the top three. The likes of Nadal battle and hang in there when the going gets tough. Murray's bottle goes. Until he overcomes that mental block he will never win a grand slam. Unfortunately, if he hasn't done it by now I don't think he ever will.
It's funny how , when one of our players loses, we pick on one particular point which is supposed to have cost him the match ie. the second set missed forehand. All the media have made so much of this, but it's tilting at windmills-nothing more. In fact you could say that, if Nadal had disputed a line call (which was given out-but was in) in the first set, then he would have had a break point. Both are really irrelevant overall because... a) Murray was never going to maintain his high first service level from the first set- throughout the match. b) Nadal could only serve better than he did early on. c) Nadal is the "streetfighter" who will scrap to the bitter end. d) Nadal's mental strength and adaptability versus Murray's- no contest. e) Nadal is the better player-full stop.
oh that old chestnut no point playing at all if you are ranked lower then This isnt a pokeman card game or whatevr it is
Correct - how were lower ranked players like Nadal, Federer etc able to reach the top - by beating players ranked higher. Not rocket science. Murray does not have the mental fortitude at this level and collapsed easily after being well in control.
the thing is the media have to have a 'point' that made it look like if he changes it next year he will win, this suits and is preparation for the hysteria next time Andy Murray may well win a GS but it will be because of factors outside his control. eg the top players will be ill/injured or something He simply hasnt got the desire imo Do you remember in the early days he simplw wasnt fit enough and struggled to go on fitness programmes
doesnt the fact that 1 thing lead to murray falling apart not prove that he isnt up to it? it actually proves how shoite other players must be if he is 4th did you see how many unforced errors he made? emphasis being unforced
No, it shows that when he makes errors against better players he gets punished. He's an excellent tennis player. He's just not as good as the top three. To call the other players ****e is disrespectful.
in fairness ronnie o' sullivan was never going to come back once he missed that spotter on the 12th with phil taylor 2 lengths infront. never happening over 2 miles let alone 7 furlongs
generally i would agree with what i think you are saying, i was focussing on a specific argument surely if a missed point/ a fluffed shot/ a wrong call can mentally destroy a player in that manner, causing him to fall apart then he is not excellent mental strength being a ver, if not the most, important weapon for a player
You're missing my point. Murray lost because he was beaten by a better player, not because he bottled it as you asserted in your OP. In their early careers, Nadal and Federer were better than the players ranked ahead of them and moved up the ranks as they beat them - as did Murray for that matter. Murray has already reached the highest level he's going to reach. He's simply not as good as Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. Bottle has nothing to do with it.
Saint John is a bit of a cheerleader for British tennis stars, Henman and now Murray. Playing to the audiance I suppose. As someone above said, Murray will win a Slam when circumstances allow, ie when the top players are injured/not at their best.
I'm just glad you called it bottle. A lot people use the Americanism choked, the wannabe yank twats. Any linguists care to tell me where the phrase, bottling it , comes from?
Mea Culpa. I thought you where refering to his constant praise. I missed him critisizing. There is a lot of pressure on Murray which he obviously cannot handle. Worse players than him have won a slam.
