Wimbledon Final: Federer v Murray

First topic message reminder :

Ok, I got this in first!

I can't make a forecast as I'm not rational on the subject, but fire away!

Do you see the link between "a lower level of funding in countries to zero funding" if we all shared the viewpoint "we dont care if our countrymen do well at tennis" ?

do you see the link between a lower level of funding and less quality and less competitive tennis?

I will not be guilt tripped into liking or supporting Murray, I am a man of honour and an independant thinker, the "But he's British" line doesn't work for me, Ricky Hatton is British and i've never warmed to him.

It's not irrational to be inspired by Murray. It is irrational to be inspired because he is Scottish.

I'm not fudging nothing, I recognise the existence of irrational thinking. I just regret that existence, it's such a problem for humans and causes so much waste.

mystiroakey wrote:Do you see the link between "a lower level of funding in countries to zero funding" if we all shared the viewpoint "we dont care if our countrymen do well at tennis" ?

do you see the link between a lower level of funding and less quality and less competitive tennis?

No.

Do you see a link between a lot of funding in British tennis, and success? If you do you have better eyesight than me, because Murray isn't a product of a domestic system.

competitive sport is irrational by natiure. infact its pointless if you wanna break it down

mystiroakey wrote:competitive sport is irrational by natiure. infact its pointless if you wanna break it down

Why? Winning is great. Nothing irrational there.

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Do you see the link between "a lower level of funding in countries to zero funding" if we all shared the viewpoint "we dont care if our countrymen do well at tennis" ?

do you see the link between a lower level of funding and less quality and less competitive tennis?

No.

Do you see a link between a lot of funding in British tennis, and success? If you do you have better eyesight than me, because Murray isn't a product of a domestic system.

isnt he- how isnt he?

Are you telling me he didnt play competitive amatuer games before he turned pro??

And like I said being inspired by Murray isn't all down to him being Scottish you know. He has fans and youngsters who admire his game (not just in Britain) and if that inspires youngsters to take up the game and one of those progresses to a decent level then that is great. I am not sure how you equate Murray winning Wimbledon being better for British tennis than Federer winning Wimbledon as being irrational it is just a mere fact.

In other areas such as Federer's worldwide fanbase then obviously a Federer win would be better for them.

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:competitive sport is irrational by natiure. infact its pointless if you wanna break it down

Why? Winning is great. Nothing irrational there.

so winning is great- offcourse it is- i love it. Many hippies would call us irrational and missing the point in life- blah blah

I'm not sure what your points. Are you saying there'd be no tenns courts without nationalism?

All we need to have tennis courts is for some people to build them to play on. It doesn't have to be all about creating a local champion.

This is very interesting conversation! Agree with much that bogbrush has to say. (apart from Santa and the tooth fairy...)

As far as tennis goes. As quite a young child my interest in tennis started because of Evonne Goolagong. She was beautiful, played amazing tennis and what was rare in those days as a female was on the big stage and winning major trophies. I would say she was inspirational. One thing that I didn't really notice or if I did it hardly seemed relevant was that she was born in Australia.

bogbrush wrote:I'm not sure what your points. Are you saying there'd be no tenns courts without nationalism?

All we need to have tennis courts is for some people to build them to play on. It doesn't have to be all about creating a local champion.

why would anyone build tennis courts or have a specific structure in place- we dont need to think britain here either- think the top countries like usa, or think sports as a whole and think investment- why would there be national training facilities.

as i said quality would drop without nationalism? off course it would

if no one cared about creating a local chmapion- how would that improve competiveness or quality

so can you see the link now?

CaledonianCraig wrote:And like I said being inspired by Murray isn't all down to him being Scottish you know. He has fans and youngsters who admire his game (not just in Britain) and if that inspires youngsters to take up the game and one of those progresses to a decent level then that is great. I am not sure how you equate Murray winning Wimbledon being better for British tennis than Federer winning Wimbledon as being irrational it is just a mere fact.

In other areas such as Federer's worldwide fanbase then obviously a Federer win would be better for them.

Its a fact that people are irrational. I accept that. It's a pity that British kids aren't as inspired (allegedly) by McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras and Federer as they would be by Murray. Such a waste of 74 years of potential.

If that's not irrational I'd like a better definition.

Murrays overseas fanbase originating from admiration of his tennis are cool. Federers Swiss national supporters based on nationalism are idiots. Just to be even handed.

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'm not sure what your points. Are you saying there'd be no tenns courts without nationalism?

All we need to have tennis courts is for some people to build them to play on. It doesn't have to be all about creating a local champion.

why would anyone build tennis courts or have a specific structure in place- we dont need to think britain here either- think the top countries like usa, or think sports as a whole and think investment- why would there be national training facilities.

as i said quality would drop without nationalism? off course it would

so can you see the link now?

Why would we build courts?

To play on them?

Why did David Lloyd build indoors tennis complexes?

To make profit.

how would the quilaty go up or remian without competitive structures in place.

mystiroakey wrote:how would the quilaty go up or remian without competitive structures in place.

Who says there'd be no competitive structure. Course there would be, people would compete.

Do you think we need tribalism to be competitive?

so how do you see that working then BB. how do you see an interlinked competitive system if no one invests and no one supports the players, and none cares if they do well or not. And they just playing on makeshift courts in there back gardens.

How do you see these players playing enough tennis to be competitive if there is no money in the game. They would all need jobs- surely.

Inspiration like I said comes in different forms and whatever the form isn't irrational as inspiration to play sport is needed as building blocks of a career. What inspires people differs like I said earlier. A kid may take to a player's game or forehand etc and be inspired by one of their great sporting achievements which captures their imagination. Now with Roger winning a 17th slam is it as headline-making news in this country (where that kid lives) or is it Andy Murray becoming the first British man to win a slam for the 76 years? It depends what drives that child as to what inspires them more but I can say that since Murray's career took off tennis numbers in Scotland have grown and an academy is now up and running in Stirling all budding to emulate Andy Murray. Not a crime is it?

mystiroakey wrote:so how do you see that working then BB. how do you see an interlinked competitive system if no one invests and no one supports the players, and none cares if they do well or not. And they just playing on makeshift courts in there back gardens.

How do you see these players playing enough tennis to be competitive if there is no money in the game. They would all need jobs- surely.

Why would nobody care? There'd just care about quality, and money would flow if it was attractive.

I only support a player for what they give me, the exhibition of skill. I have paid a lot of money to watch them.

And while you mention makeshift courts and no money I'm watching the Williams sisters cleaning up again.

BB face facts mate human nature is what it is.. without this trait mate- we aouldnt even have sport as we know it. No country would want to out do the next. and wouldnt pump money and time to make them do well. This attitude isnt goinna change. More people will play tennis if murray wiuns in this country and long may that happen.

Your utopium view would just kill competition in my mind and sport would die a death!

sport is a by prouduct of feeling different and wanting to beat someone else at lets by honest a completly immaterial skill!!

CaladonianCraig. I am pretty sure all those kids up in Stirling are not trying to emulate Andy Murray. I bet there are a few with babolet rackets and a few who bounce the ball too many times and a few that imagine 16 slam trophies?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Inspiration like I said comes in different forms and whatever the form isn't irrational as inspiration to play sport is needed as building blocks of a career. What inspires people differs like I said earlier. A kid may take to a player's game or forehand etc and be inspired by one of their great sporting achievements which captures their imagination. Now with Roger winning a 17th slam is it as headline-making news in this country (where that kid lives) or is it Andy Murray becoming the first British man to win a slam for the 76 years? It depends what drives that child as to what inspires them more but I can say that since Murray's career took off tennis numbers in Scotland have grown and an academy is now up and running in Stirling all budding to emulate Andy Murray. Not a crime is it?

I think being inspired by a forehand is rational. Being inspired because someone gives a relevant example of hat one might onesef do is also rational.

John Inverdale being inspired by a Scottish lad winning at tennis unless he does so in a way that is inspiring distinctly from his nationality isn't.

Obviously it isn't necessary to have a local champion to inspire you - many, many people are successful in sport without a local hero (Murray being a prime example). Having said that, it appears obvious that having a local champion does raise local interest in a sport, increasing participation numbers and providing a bigger pool of talent and more opportunities. Many successful tennis nations have developed a national style of training that has served them well (Spain, France, USA etc.).

As for tomorrows match, some will support Murray because he is British, some (like me) will support him because he is a great player and a great ambassador for sports. Some will support Federer because they prefer how he plays (fair enough). Many won't support Murray because he is Scottish or because they are extremely gullible and believe whatever nonsense is in the papers. Like it or not nationalism and sport are eternally intertwined.

Well they certainly became aware of tennis thanks to Andy Murray what with Stirling being a few miles away from Andy's hometown of Dunblane and yes a lot of them are aiming to emulate Andy actually.

carrieg4 wrote:Obviously it isn't necessary to have a local champion to inspire you - many, many people are successful in sport without a local hero (Murray being a prime example). Having said that, it appears obvious that having a local champion does raise local interest in a sport, increasing participation numbers and providing a bigger pool of talent and more opportunities. Many successful tennis nations have developed a national style of training that has served them well (Spain, France, USA etc.).

As for tomorrows match, some will support Murray because he is British, some (like me) will support him because he is a great player and a great ambassador for sports. Some will support Federer because they prefer how he plays (fair enough). Many won't support Murray because he is Scottish or because they are extremely gullible and believe whatever nonsense is in the papers. Like it or not nationalism and sport are eternally intertwined.

Spot on. I couldn't have put it better.

mystiroakey wrote:BB face facts mate human nature is what it is.. without this trait mate- we aouldnt even have sport as we know it. No country would want to out do the next. and wouldnt pump money and time to make them do well. This attitude isnt goinna change. More people will play tennis if murray wiuns in this country and long may that happen.

Your utopium view would just kill competition in my mind and sport would die a death!

sport is a by prouduct of feeling different and wanting to beat someone else at lets by honest a completly immaterial skill!!

I'm sorry but you're wrong. You just believe in nationalism so strongly you'd feel deprived without it.

We compete for ourselves. We don't need nationalism to make us do that.

I was inspired to play tennis by John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl. I have been inspired to watch it by Roger Federer. No need or nationalism.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Obviously it isn't necessary to have a local champion to inspire you - many, many people are successful in sport without a local hero (Murray being a prime example). Having said that, it appears obvious that having a local champion does raise local interest in a sport, increasing participation numbers and providing a bigger pool of talent and more opportunities. Many successful tennis nations have developed a national style of training that has served them well (Spain, France, USA etc.).

As for tomorrows match, some will support Murray because he is British, some (like me) will support him because he is a great player and a great ambassador for sports. Some will support Federer because they prefer how he plays (fair enough). Many won't support Murray because he is Scottish or because they are extremely gullible and believe whatever nonsense is in the papers. Like it or not nationalism and sport are eternally intertwined.

Spot on. I couldn't have put it better.

Yes, there are all sorts of reasons.some rational, some not.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well they certainly became aware of tennis thanks to Andy Murray what with Stirling being a few miles away from Andy's hometown of Dunblane and yes a lot of them are aiming to emulate Andy actually.

A nearby example that demonstrates what they may actually do themselves is very rational.

If those kids who have taken up tennis because of Andy Murray and one of them goes on to make it onto the tennis circuit that is a good thing - no two ways about it.

Bookies are saying this is 65% Federer 35% Murray.

Similar odds to what Federer had to deal with to beat Djokovic.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Obviously it isn't necessary to have a local champion to inspire you - many, many people are successful in sport without a local hero (Murray being a prime example). Having said that, it appears obvious that having a local champion does raise local interest in a sport, increasing participation numbers and providing a bigger pool of talent and more opportunities. Many successful tennis nations have developed a national style of training that has served them well (Spain, France, USA etc.).

As for tomorrows match, some will support Murray because he is British, some (like me) will support him because he is a great player and a great ambassador for sports. Some will support Federer because they prefer how he plays (fair enough). Many won't support Murray because he is Scottish or because they are extremely gullible and believe whatever nonsense is in the papers. Like it or not nationalism and sport are eternally intertwined.

Spot on. I couldn't have put it better.

Yes, there are all sorts of reasons.some rational, some not.

Does everything have to be rational / logical BB? I am not quite ready to be a Vulcan yet.

I will be cheering Murray tomorrow as a year round tennis fan who loves how he plays and his dedication to the sport. Some others, who think tennis is only played two weeks a year, will be waving Union flags or Saltires and cheering the local man and why not? Whatever the reason, as long as it raises the profile of tennis and exercise in general in the UK then I am happy.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If those kids who have taken up tennis because of Andy Murray and one of them goes on to make it onto the tennis circuit that is a good thing - no two ways about it.

Yes!

The ones who didn't because though there was a staggeringly wonderful Swedish/German/Argentine great they didnt pay attention because he wasn't "one of us" is a f*cking tragedy. Right?

carrieg, this reply applies to yours too.

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:BB face facts mate human nature is what it is.. without this trait mate- we aouldnt even have sport as we know it. No country would want to out do the next. and wouldnt pump money and time to make them do well. This attitude isnt goinna change. More people will play tennis if murray wiuns in this country and long may that happen.

Your utopium view would just kill competition in my mind and sport would die a death!

sport is a by prouduct of feeling different and wanting to beat someone else at lets by honest a completly immaterial skill!!

I'm sorry but you're wrong. You just believe in nationalism so strongly you'd feel deprived without it.

We compete for ourselves. We don't need nationalism to make us do that.

I was inspired to play tennis by John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl. I have been inspired to watch it by Roger Federer. No need or nationalism.

you have totaly missed the point- i was also inspired to play by mcenroie as well!!

You dont get the realities of the situation.If no one supported local players(on any level) the sport wouldnt be as high quailty. And it even goes deeper than that as well-if we all felt that way i would really seriously fear for sport.

Bascially fact is Bog- be carefull of what you wish for. The irony of your argument is that sport is all about the competitive envioroment,But it is completly and allways will be defined by support and never underestimate support however it comes!

Some rather bizarre and inaccurate comments on here.

First off, Murray is not a product of the LTA. Judy Murray funded him to refine his talent in Spain, so effectively not a product of the LTA. Same with Heather Watson if people actually care to research such things instead of using assumption.

I have been a supporter of Murray since he burst on the scene. If we are talking who inspired me it was Becker. I have suffered through the Henman years. I have however laid eyes to some phenonminal talent in the shape of Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Graff, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and more recently Djokovic.

I will always banged the drum for British tennis, but where it falls down is the LTA's inability to get the fundementals right for youth tennis. See this tournament has shown that Britain can produce some tennis talent. The LTA and 'upcoming' tennis talents is like the cliche 'Good ideas happening to stupid people'.

Any Murray success is false advertising for the LTA. Sadily the LTA will have no problems trying to revel in any Murray success. That is the frustration for me. David Lloyd was the best thing that happened to the LTA and they dicked that one up.

For me a Murray victory will just be what Britain needs for youngsters to take an interest in the sport, but I can guarantee that once they get into the LTA system, they might just end up choosing a different sport.

None the less, I would love for Andy to win tomorrow.

mystiroakey wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:BB face facts mate human nature is what it is.. without this trait mate- we aouldnt even have sport as we know it. No country would want to out do the next. and wouldnt pump money and time to make them do well. This attitude isnt goinna change. More people will play tennis if murray wiuns in this country and long may that happen.

Your utopium view would just kill competition in my mind and sport would die a death!

sport is a by prouduct of feeling different and wanting to beat someone else at lets by honest a completly immaterial skill!!

I'm sorry but you're wrong. You just believe in nationalism so strongly you'd feel deprived without it.

We compete for ourselves. We don't need nationalism to make us do that.

I was inspired to play tennis by John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl. I have been inspired to watch it by Roger Federer. No need or nationalism.

you have totaly missed the point- i was also inspired to play by mcenroie as well!!

You dont get the realities of the situation.If no one supported local players(on any level) the sport wouldnt be as high quailty. And it even goes deeper than that as well-if we all felt that way i would really seriously fear for sport.

Bascially fact is Bog- be carefull of what you wish for. The irony of your argument is that sport is all about the competitive envioroment, it is completly and allways will be defined by support and never underestimate support however it comes!

So you don't deny that nationalism is irrational, you defend it as a means to an end?

Yes, that line of thinking is put to other uses too.

hawkeye wrote:CaladonianCraig. I am pretty sure all those kids up in Stirling are not trying to emulate Andy Murray. I bet there are a few with babolet rackets and a few who bounce the ball too many times and a few that imagine 16 slam trophies?

They are trying to achieve what he has achieved. Having got interested in the game they might play it in a different style or even prefer other players games but the main thing is that they are trying out the sport. Out of that another very good player may emerge in the future.

GB seems to have a few good young players coming through Golding, Broady, Edmund in the mens, Watson and Robson in the womens. I can't prove it but I imagine that at least some of these will have been inspired but the way that Murray (and previously Henman and Rudeski) have gone about getting into the top echelons of Tennis.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:If those kids who have taken up tennis because of Andy Murray and one of them goes on to make it onto the tennis circuit that is a good thing - no two ways about it.

Yes!

The ones who didn't because though there was a staggeringly wonderful Swedish/German/Argentine great they didnt pay attention because he wasn't "one of us" is a f*cking tragedy. Right?

carried,this reply applies to yours too.

It doesn't matter two hoots how they get into the sport - it is getting them there that matters. If they do so by being motivated/inspired by Andy Murray then great. Participation in the sport at the youngest levels are the basic building blocks to nurturing home-grown talent.

"First off, Murray is not a product of the LTA. Judy Murray funded him to
refine his talent in Spain, so effectively not a product of the LTA.
Same with Heather Watson if people actually care to research such things
instead of using assumption."


i dont think anyone has ever said that he was. but he was still supported by a doemstic set up early on. Without local support in spian,scotland,england, usa - or were ever- players wouldnt be able to go around the globe and refine there talent. He still kick started it off in the uk, and even if he kick started it in spain- same diffence. He is still a product of a competitive amatuer juniour set up

good to see you want to see british tennis do well though- thats the main thing and point in all of this

Craig, if nationalism wasn't a factor they could still be inspired by Andys tennis. They just would focus down on a national origin and be open to broader horizons. That's the tragedy of the illusion of meaning to national origin.

Anyway, This one is done, in the sense it's all been said.

I'm out of the thread now, see you on others.

If supporting Murray because he is British is irrational, then most people on earth are irrational. Michael Chang inspired youngsters in China and Hong Kong to take up tennis. When Yao Ming was drafted to the NBA, people in China felt proud. Williams sisters get to meet Mandela. Millions living in Africa were delighted when Obama became US president. Amir Khan was born and raised in the UK, but his ethnic community takes pride in his achievements. Imran Tahir plays for South Africa, but people living far away in Pakstan are proud when he performs well. Over a year ago, a Filipino young woman made the finals of Miss Universe pageant when Filipinos living all over the world were thrilled at the prospect of one of their own or one like them winning that crown. When Michael Campbell (one-hit wonder) won US Open golf, a hundred thousand people (that's almost everybody, not quite but you get the point), including the head of State, came out on the streets to show their joy.

I do not understand why it would be irrational for Britons, especially those in Scotland, to flock to pubs and support Murray. OK, he is not English, but why make this sound like a dirty deed like Indians celebrating when a Pakstani wins an olympic gold or vice versa, North Koreans cheering for their southern look-alikes, or Iranians for Iraqis?

Face it boys, it's not up to Murray to motivate the kids, its up to the kids parents/minders to do that. To be great at tennis, you need to start playing when you are 5 or 6.

Jos- its all about getting it into the education systemas well really- the great thing about a murray win though is that it would push the profile. The problem with tennis is that it is kind off elitest at the moment. so we need to get everyone invloved. Wer cant expect parents getting there kids into a game that they dont play- we could be missing out on bundles of talent there- we need to make it accesable- and we need to use our resources better

mystiroakey wrote:Jos- its all about getting it into the education systemas well really- the great thing about a murray win though is that it would push the profile. The problem with tennis is that it is kind off elitest at the moment. so we need to get everyone invloved. Wer cant expect parents getting there kids into a game that they dont play- we could be missing out on bundles of talent there- we need to make it accesable- and we need to use our resources better

There are council run courts. Outdoor hardcourts. Kids can play for free on these.

If they want to play on Grass or Clay then yes it will cost a bit more, but these courts cost a bundle to maintain and also exposed to the seasons. They would get about 6 months worth of action at the most.

Schools need to make PE competitive again instead of this no-one can lose crap for self esteem.

legendkillarV2 wrote:For me a Murray victory will just be what Britain needs for youngsters to take an interest in the sport, but I can guarantee that once they get into the LTA system, they might just end up choosing a different sport

I'm depressed now LK! The success of Leon Smith is giving me some hope for the future of British tennis, maybe things are changing for the better, lets face it they couldn't have got much worse.

Leff wrote:I do not understand why it would be irrational for Britons, especially those in Scotland, to flock to pubs and support Murray.

Absolutely nothing irrational about it. It is human nature to feel an affinity for local talent. Another point BB seems to have missed

legendkillarV2 wrote:Schools need to make PE competitive again instead of this no-one can lose crap for self esteem.

carrieg4 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:For me a Murray victory will just be what Britain needs for youngsters to take an interest in the sport, but I can guarantee that once they get into the LTA system, they might just end up choosing a different sport

I'm depressed now LK! The success of Leon Smith is giving me some hope for the future of British tennis, maybe things are changing for the better, lets face it they couldn't have got much worse.

For Leon Smith to be a success for me would be to get GB back into the World Group/

Don't be depressed carrie there are many British youngsters that may just put Britain back on the tennis map.

legendkillarV2 wrote:For Leon Smith to be a success for me would be to get GB back into the World Group

At least things are moving towards that under him, unlike his predecessor!

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Jos- its all about getting it into the education systemas well really- the great thing about a murray win though is that it would push the profile. The problem with tennis is that it is kind off elitest at the moment. so we need to get everyone invloved. Wer cant expect parents getting there kids into a game that they dont play- we could be missing out on bundles of talent there- we need to make it accesable- and we need to use our resources better

There are council run courts. Outdoor hardcourts. Kids can play for free on these.

If they want to play on Grass or Clay then yes it will cost a bit more, but these courts cost a bundle to maintain and also exposed to the seasons. They would get about 6 months worth of action at the most.

Schools need to make PE competitive again instead of this no-one can lose crap for self esteem.

exactly and something that BB is missing when he says we just need areas to play asnd not bother about finding that local champ. We need proper competitive systems in place, and we need to pride those winners

carrieg4 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:For Leon Smith to be a success for me would be to get GB back into the World Group

At least things are moving towards that under him, unlike his predecessor!

But his predecessor did have a sack of crap to pick from. Evans was toilet in the DC at the height of his ranking. As was Ward.

Smith has the benefit of some impressive youngsters coming through in Golding, Edmund.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:For Leon Smith to be a success for me would be to get GB back into the World Group

At least things are moving towards that under him, unlike his predecessor!

But his predecessor did have a sack of crap to pick from. Evans was toilet in the DC at the height of his ranking. As was Ward.

Smith has the benefit of some impressive youngsters coming through in Golding, Edmund.

Fair enough - it turns out being demoted was actually a good thing for the DC team. It let them play at the level of the team as a whole thereby improving the level of the team as a whole without always just relying on two wins from one man and hoping to scrape another from the other three rubbers. Lithuania was a bit of a low point to say the least.