Andy Murray.. on a path to greatness?

In the last 12 months, Andy Murray has done something most of us would not have thought possible (even us Murray fans).

He has become a multi slam winner with a shinny gold olympics medal too.

Wow

On top of that he has reached every major final in the last 12 months (except the French where he was injured) and moved himself to number 2 in the world

With all the negative comments that follow him around, I really just wanted to give him a shout out to say well done for the last 12(ish) months

3 Slam finals in a row
2 Slam wims
One Olympic Gold
Number 2 in the world

Impressive in anyones book

Now, does this mean he is destined to be a all time great? - not yet imo - but if he can keep going like he is, and gets to 5 or 6 slams, he truly will be one of the greats of tennis (not up there with Nadal or Federer, but still a great)

So well done Andy Murray and I keep my fingers crossed you can keep going

Some time back someone came up with a thread to define all the hyperbolic words that get used.

Without a definition I have no idea if he's on the path to greatness. With words like 'legend' or acronyms like GOAT around for all I know he's already 'great'.

The "HM Murdoch Rule of Greatness" states that greatness begins at 6 slams, legend begins at 10 slams.

I'd say he's in with a chance of making the category of 'great'.

Also, I'm probably out of step with the opinion of many on the Olympic gold. To me, it counts for very little. I rate him no higher for winning it and I wouldn't rate him lower if he hadn't won it. It's a nice footnote, nothing more.

I rate the Olympic medal at least equal with DC... As an aside I use the exact same system as HMM

HM Murdoch wrote:......... Olympic gold. To me, it counts for very little. I rate him no higher for winning it and I wouldn't rate him lower if he hadn't won it. It's a nice footnote, nothing more.

 

I get why players like the novelty of representing their country, and their scarcity, but bottom line they're not played over the format of the greatest tournaments. The Masters YE comes #5 to me for the obvious reason of the level of competition they must face and the challenge to qualify at all, and Masters 1000 Events next.

I put OG alongside DC, which isn't that high in my book.

Yeah, winning the Olympic gold must be an amazing experience. But there are 14 other events on the tennis calendar that award more ranking points!

That's about the measure of it in my estimation.

DC to me is entirely superfluous!

The greatness scale for me is 8+ Slams. It should only be for the elite of the elite.

Andy really needs to work hard to push himself into that elite group. The OG doesn't add anything to the CV. For me it will always be seen as a turning point in his career, even though he had won bigger titles before.

While I see what you say about the OG (and the ranking points), i still think it is a very sought after prize, and had the best of the best aiming for it, so I still think it is a very impressive addition

I would go for 6 slams as great, and 10 as legend as well - so a bit of work to go, and he may make it

18 is super legend :-)


But I still stand that this has been an impressive year for Murray

Everyone has their own view on the Olympics and their importance to tennis. I remember Novak saying that the French and the Olympics were his 2 main objectives last year. But then he is very patriotic. Federer is so keen to play the next one that he intends to keep playing until then.

Murray also said before the Olympics that they were essentially the equivalent to a fifth slam for him. He even said after the US open that the Olympics were still the highlight of his career, though I think that might have changed last week. Points wise of course, they aren't the same. And they don't seem to have the same importance to most fans on here as they do to the players.

One thing that can't be argued is the importance they had on Murray and his career. It was the turning point.

I think Olympic Gold means more to the players (esp. if won at home), than to tennis fans or pundits in general. I'm sure it's an emotional experience and a highlight for the player, but I don't think it counts for much when looking back on a player's career from a neutral perspective.
I have my doubts that Murray will reach 6 slams - he's no spring chicken - I think he's more likely to end up on a par with Courier than Becker or Edberg.

The Olympics gold, at Wimbledon and beating Federer in a BO5 final so soon after losing to him in the Wimbledon final, has more significance in Murray's progression than it necessarily does in adding to his legacy -after all, since the reintroduction of tennis to the Olympics, it's fair to say that the men's champions have been a bit of a mixed bag: (Edberg as a demonstrations sport), Mecir, Rosset, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Massu, Nadal, Murray.

As for Murray's status in the game, he's now clearly up there as 'Great' in the context of British players (only really Perry on a comparable level) and as having demonstrated he is genuinely world class, but he is still a good few slams short of the level of the greats of the game.

I think winning about 6 GSs is the benchmark for a 'great' and about 10 as an All Time Great, slightly varying depending on how many runners up and other top level events are on a player's CV.

Andy might get to the great level by the end of his career, but to be honest I think most of us are just happy that he's got the slam monkey off his back and now anything else is a bonus.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I have my doubts that Murray will reach 6 slams - he's no spring chicken - I think he's more likely to end up on a par with Courier than Becker or Edberg.

It's so easy to add future slams to a player. I often hear it said that Novak will probably get to 10 slams and now Andy is being given 6.

I think it will be remarkable if either reaches those totals. Not beyond the realms of possibility but a heck of an achievement to pull off from their current position and ages.

This USO may be crucial to getting those totals. If Novak finishes the year on 7 slams or Andy on 3, I think their respective goals of 10 and 6 become more viable.

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I have my doubts that Murray will reach 6 slams - he's no spring chicken - I think he's more likely to end up on a par with Courier than Becker or Edberg.

It's so easy to add future slams to a player. I often hear it said that Novak will probably get to 10 slams and now Andy is being given 6.

I think it will be remarkable if either reaches those totals. Not beyond the realms of possibility but a heck of an achievement to pull off from their current position and ages.

This USO may be crucial to getting those totals. If Novak finishes the year on 7 slams or Andy on 3, I think their respective goals of 10 and 6 become more viable.

This is the reason I think that getting to 6 classes as a great. AS I mentioned I do not class him yet as a great, (fantastic to win 2 but not a great yet)

It is fingers crossed that he can do so

Can we all agree that to be a tennis great - 6 Slams and a legend - 10 slams

Just so we have this agreed before hand, so no-one can change the goal posts :-)

Multiple slam winner is a fantastic achievement - not something I expected to say of Murray 12 months ago. As for greatness - well he's a long way from that in my view, for me that's not less than 6 slams and some time at #1. For my money in order to get there Murray has to match Jim Courier's entire slam-win accumulation in terms of numbers.

I agree with HM about how easy it is to add future slams to a player - if Murray is on 4 this time next year that will be very impressive going. He could do it, for sure, but more easily a couple of things could go less than perfectly for him and he misses out.

I guess for me it's not so much the number of Slams being the definition, but what population of players does one join.

Take > 10. How many are there (Open era only)? Is it Borg, Nadal, Sampras & Federer? That's rarified enough for me to place it above 'great'.
By that yardstick I'd want a second measure that encompasses no more than another 8 players. Anyone know what the cut off is to do that?

As time goes by those may have to change. If a guy comes along and wins 25/30 Slams we can't really call the current top boys legends, or can we?

"I think it will be remarkable if either reaches those totals. Not beyond the realms of possibility but a heck of an achievement to pull off from their current position and ages."

Surely it would be remarkable if neither reached those targets. Unless Nadal is suddenly going to go on a massive tear then who is going to win the 7 non-clay slams between now and the end of 2015 - by which point Novak and Andy will be at 28 - still not old in modern tennis player terms? Things can change in tennis but, baring injury, I'd be very surprised if Novak in particularly doesnt make 4 more slams.

BB, by your definition, 6 works as the boundary. In the "less than 10, more than 5" group we have:

Connors, Lendl and Agassi on 8.
McEnroe and Wilander on 7.
Edberg, Becker and Djokovic on 6.

I'd guess that some would differ on the inclusion of Becker, Edberg and Djoko but to me that is a pretty fair reflection of the second tier of greatness.

I also agree with barrystar that time at #1 is a factor.

I'd say in the currency of greatness, slams are the pounds, weeks at 1 are the pence.

Born Slippy wrote:"I think it will be remarkable if either reaches those totals. Not beyond the realms of possibility but a heck of an achievement to pull off from their current position and ages."

Surely it would be remarkable if neither reached those targets. Unless Nadal is suddenly going to go on a massive tear then who is going to win the 7 non-clay slams between now and the end of 2015 - by which point Novak and Andy will be at 28 - still not old in modern tennis player terms? Things can change in tennis but, baring injury, I'd be very surprised if Novak in particularly doesnt make 4 more slams.

Think of it in terms of seasons.

If Novak doesn't win USO, he begins 2014 on 6 slams. To reach 10, he needs to:
- win 2 slams a year for 2 years, by which time he will be 28.
- win 2 slams in one year then 1 per year for two years, by which time he will be 29.
- win a slam a year for 4 years, by which time he will be 30.

Bearing in mind that he's only won more than 1 slam in a year once (to date), you can see he's probably going to have to win more frequently despite getting older to get to 10. Possible but very tough.

Bogbrush

For slams won only in the Open era, your next 8 takes you down to 6 slams, with Djokovic, Edberg and Becker. If you want to include players who bridged the Amateur/Pro/Open era divide you'd nudge up to 7 and include Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe (8, 11 and 7 slams respectively) so your 'Great' group ends with McEnroe, Wilander and Newcombe.

I think I'd stick with the 6+ slams definition. It also gives something of a natural break, as there is no 5 times slam winner (well, Laver won 5 slams as a pro, but his 11 slam total and Grand Slams puts him up into the legends category anyway).

I agree with those who are saying we are being too hasty in giving future slams to the current top players - it is historically unusual for players to win multiple slams in a year, yet all of Roger, Rafa and Novak have won 3 slams in one season - previousy, only Laver, Connors and Wilander had done this in the Open era. Yes, the relative narrowing of playing conditions has had an impact (although clearly there are still differences, hence Rafa's numerous FO titles but only 1 USO and Fe'd multiple Wimbledon/USO crowns ad only one RG title), but it is quite reasonable to think that for the next couple of years we might see different winners at all the slams (as happened last year and so far this).

If Andy Murray somehow makes no.1 he would have achieved everything in Tennis. A grand slam, a Masters, an Olympic, I guess WTF and No.1 status eludes him, but I won't be surprised if he does both this year and anything from there is a bonus.

Being No.1 is the biggest pride in Tennis and Andy wants it.

If the courts weren't all homogenised and modern raquets, perhaps.  But trying to compare Murray's 2 slams against even Djokovic shows how far away he is.  Compared to any of the old time greats, or Federer, he is nowhere.  Even if he had 100 slams he would not be in their league, because his game is not an art-form and has no true ability.  Counter punching and pushing can win you titles, but they rarely get you remembered in the long run. He will never make WN1 with Djokovic around, either. That's one thing he can't fluke.

Homo said it so it must be true...

I think people on here are way too harsh. If, and its a big if, Andy were to win Wimbledon twice more he would go down as as a great as a 3 time Wimbledon champion.
Id definitely call Els and Mickleson golfing greats with four majors each. And neither has ever been a long term number one.

It depends on your definition of greatness, I already rate him as an all time great of the game. Although I tend to be more generous than most and rate an all time great with at least 2 slams. I think with 2 slams and a long career at or the near top that it qualifies you for greatness. Some 2 slam winners I don't classify as all time greats like Kafelnikov or Safin, as great as the Russians were they just failed to get that final hurdle. Or Johan Kriek who won two aussies prior to all the players attending the AO also doesn't qualify for greatness. While Hewitt I do consider as a great of the game because he backed up his results with more than just the two slam wins in his CV. For me 2 slams at the least and a very successful career otherwise gets you to all time great status. Murray already has accomplished more in the game than many players with 3 or even 4 slams. When you look at the masters and all the finals of slams he has been to and all the years in a row finishing in the top 4 then I think he is already an all time great of the game.

That would amount to one Hell of a lot of 'greats'. Doesn't meaning disappear from the term at that point?

_homogenised_ wrote:If the courts weren't all homogenised and modern raquets, perhaps.  But trying to compare Murray's 2 slams against even Djokovic shows how far away he is.  Compared to any of the old time greats, or Federer, he is nowhere.  Even if he had 100 slams he would not be in their league, because his game is not an art-form and has no true ability.  Counter punching and pushing can win you titles, but they rarely get you remembered in the long run.  He will never make WN1 with Djokovic around, either.  That's one thing he can't fluke.

Every time you speak it adds a tea spoon of sugar to what happened last week!

"Even if he had 100 slams he wouldn't be in their league"...

Please... Keep it coming.

In football, the term great, encompasses more players, thus there is a lot more room for "greatness".

For me, I think six is a reasonable place to start assuming that a player is great. Ten is All-time great. I can understand holding a player with Two Slams as a great. I suppose its dependent on how greatly you rate other aspects of tennis, i.e time WN1, slam final appearances, etc. Since the beginning of the Open era, there have been around 180 Slams, of those, Sampras holds 14, Federer 17, Nadal 12, Borg 11, There is then a three Slam gap between Borg and Lendl who is tied are eight. Connors and Wilander McEnroe, Djokovic and Becker and Edberg tied on six. Laver and Newcombe are on five. Obviously a little handicapped, but, all of these guys had reigns as the #1 players in world tennis... They also account for 118 Slams, roughly two-thirds of all OE slams... I would think thats a decent line to define the OE greats.

I am with BB hence why I said 8+

It has to be an elite group or everyone will be great

LKV2 - Would you say there is a difference between a great, and an all time great?

Everyone has their own way of judging what criteria justifies great or all time great...

For me, and edging back to the OP, it will be interesting to see how Andy pushes on after achieving his own personal holy grail. I suspect he'll perform pretty well over the coming weeks, perhaps starting slow (as he always does after a long break) and win a masters before the open.

He loves the surface and atmosphere in New York so I think he'll go pretty close to winning it again.

No KR. Both have the same word.

I mean with 2 or 3 slams do we get too many all times greats? We are talking about 20 some odd players in the open era with that type of qualification. I am pretty comfortable with feeling that those players are distinguished enough to be classed as greats. I mean if we look at football or basketball players many players get the great classification without having had to be the best player in the world at one time. I mean I consider Henry a great footballer, an all time great of the game he has never been voted world player of the year. It seems that with everything else tennis players are held to a much higher standard for greatness than players of team sports. The same thing exists for basketball players here, a lot of players in basketball after years of great careers are considered all time greats but have never won MVP or player of the year honors. In tennis it seems even a lengthy spell at number one and multiple slams somehow fails to qualify, but I don't see why. That is why I am more inclusive in my definition. It is very hard to say that out of the thousands of pros of some distinction on the ATP tour in the open era that the top 20 or 25 guys don't deserve the great distinction.

lmao gets even better now debating whether Murray is an all time great haha, must be the most overrated player ever/.

_homogenised_ wrote:lmao gets even better now debating whether Murray is an all time great haha, must be the most overrated player ever/.

Anything constructive to say homogenised? In case you hadn't noticed a variety of viewpoints have been expressed without cheap insults. In other words, the grown ups are talking.

Maybe, 20-25 isn't too common.

I guess great, all-time great, GOAT could work, there could be a sufficiently sloped pyramid to it. But what do we do with legends? (apart from give them jobs in media).

I tend to agree with the 6 slam cut off.  He may or may not make it, but it will be fun watching nonetheless.  Should be a fun few years

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:......... Olympic gold. To me, it counts for very little. I rate him no higher for winning it and I wouldn't rate him lower if he hadn't won it. It's a nice footnote, nothing more.

 

I get why players like the novelty of representing their country, and their scarcity, but bottom line they're not played over the format of the greatest tournaments. The Masters YE comes #5 to me for the obvious reason of the level of competition they must face and the challenge to qualify at all, and Masters 1000 Events next.

I put OG alongside DC, which isn't that high in my book.

You need to have a word with your mate Roger, who saw it as the holy grail of 2012. By all acounts Del Potro rates his bronze higher than his Slam win. I'd also argue that Novak's failure to win a medal is responsible for the breaking down of the machine he was

People can argue as much as they want about what something means to them. However, when it's obvious it means more to the players, we have to respect that

Incidentally, I would have counted it as another big loss if Murray had lost and said so at the time. For the Olympics 2012 and the interest it attracted plus the coveted event it became - it was the equivalent of a major

dummy_half wrote:The Olympics gold, at Wimbledon and beating Federer in a BO5 final so soon after losing to him in the Wimbledon final, has more significance in Murray's progression than it necessarily does in adding to his legacy.

It also means we have the hilarious situation of the most maligned player on these boards (and the previous ones) of being the one, along with Rafa of still having a chance of doing the Golden Slam

A chance, albeit very small

bogbrush wrote:I guess for me it's not so much the number of Slams being the definition, but what population of players does one join.

Take > 10. How many are there (Open era only)? Is it Borg, Nadal, Sampras & Federer? That's rarified enough for me to place it above 'great'.
By that yardstick I'd want a second measure that encompasses no more than another 8 players. Anyone know what the cut off is to do that?

As time goes by those may have to change. If a guy comes along and wins 25/30 Slams we can't really call the current top boys legends, or can we?

I'd agree with this.

As for where Murray stands on the scale well in terms of British tennis players he is the greatest of the Open Era but on all-time scale he is behind the likes of Perry, Renshaw and a couple of others on slam wins. In the future I would hazard a guess the bookmakers would offer greater odds that he won't win another slam than he will. He'll be a contender at the Australian, Wimbledon and US Open for possibly the next three years but can't ever see him winning the French Open.

bogbrush wrote:Maybe, 20-25 isn't too common.

I guess great, all-time great, GOAT could work, there could be a sufficiently sloped pyramid to it. But what do we do with legends? (apart from give them jobs in media).

It is not too common especially when considering how many guys never get one slam and forget about getting even a second slam. Now for me two slams alone doesn't cut it, you have to have a consistent body of work in conjunction with those two slams I am happy to give great or legendary status. But the two slams gives you a good starting point for discussion. I mean guys like Vilas, Ashe, Nastase, Smith, and now Andy Murray are legends of the game. Sure they are not on anyone's short list for GOAT discussion but that is another kettle of fish, with another set of subjective and objective requirements. Murray in particular stands out of these group of players because he has been so good for so long and now has the validation of not one but two slams wins. I actually think that the number 1 ranking is a good a measure but it can't be definitive either, I mean do you really have to be the absolutely best guy in the world at some point before you can be a legend of the sport, then what about all the other great footballers of 1960s, not named Pele, or the great footballers of 90s and 2000s not named Ronaldo or Zidane? I mean Rios and Wozniacki both have reached #1, but I don't think they make anyones all time great list. It comes down to being a multislam winner with a strong supporting body of work for me. This is still a very refined list of players but inclusive enough to appreciate the accomplishments of performers who were both consistent and great. Sure maybe not consistent enough to be in GOAT conversations but still greats and legends in their own right.

Taking 5 in the Open Era as the benchmark, 5 is probably GREAT (Murray won't be reaching it). 7 is exceptional, and 10 is Greatest.  Of course this doesn't reflect differences in conditions which is why I still place Borg second, and in some respects, first.  By some margin over Nadal for example.

Roger Federer 17
Pete Sampras  14
Rafael Nadal 12
Björn Borg 11
Ivan Lendl 8
Jimmy Connors 8
Andre Agassi 8
John McEnroe 7
Mats Wilander 7
Boris Becker  6
Stefan Edberg 6
Novak Djokovic 6
John Newcombe 5
Rod Laver 5

So Olympic gold is a worthless chink of metal that doesn't deserve mention in the same breath as a Masters event ?

You lot are amazing.

I suppose the golden slams of Agassi and Graf are a pointless entry into the history books and Federer's continued goal of getting the Yellow Medallion in Rio is also a pointless exercise in a futile attempt to get his name on the extremely rare list of players who have achieved this milestone. If he thought the same as you, why has he tried so hard to win one ? why bother turning up playing for your country when as many of you say, its not worth the effort for its lowly, novelty value.

Had Federer won in London last year, your tones would be a complete mirror to what they are now.

It seems most players and the public have a different view to yours, based on other more important matters in life other than opinions broadly expressed on a sports forum.

"At London 2012, played on the grass courts of Wimbledon, the competition attracted record participation by the top players and drew capacity crowds for every session"

Now there must be a legitimate reason for that, other than doing it because they had nothing better to do for a couple of weeks. It has always been said that winning Gold is mentioned alongside Olympic Glory and that playing for your country and standing on the podium listening to your national anthem is something that all tennis players aspire to. Why would Gold medallists turn up 4 yrs later ready to defend their title.

As a little reminder of how much taking part and winning a medal means to players.......... "Federer carried the Swiss flag twice in Athens and Bejing, but in 2013, it will be Wawrinka to get this honour at the Opening Ceremony of the London Olympic Games" - "The celebration of Federer and Wawrinka at the end of the match was one of the highlights of the 2008 Olympic Games".

Obviously, some of the opinions on here do not match that of players and the public who really matter.

I think we just need to wait till 2020 and then see. Novak and Murray will be near enough finished and then we can see. Sport and sporting history has shown us that we can never predict what's going to happen.

When Pete Sampras won his 14th title in 2002, did we think that the guy that would beat his total had been knocked out in the same tournament by Max Mirnyi and that the record would stand for only 7 years in a domination of Grand Slam competition unseen over an extended period?
When Liverpool won their last title, did we think that little over 20 years later, Man Utd would win every 2nd title or so and over take them, with Liverpool having been stuck there?
Or that standing on the podium after losing the World Championship, that could be Massa's last win?

We can hypothesise. In 6 months we could be asking whether Murray can complete the Murray-Slam at the French? Or maybe Djokovic will have 8 titles. Or perhaps they are forever going to be stuck at 6 and 2 as titles start to go to other guys.

OG aside, good or bad, Murray has got a long way to go to be defined as a great of the game. Time, or perhaps his body, isn't on his side either. If he can get to 6+ slams then the discussion gets interesting but I just don't see that happening...he's redlining a more physically based, more one dimensional retrieval-based game to get these wins and feel he'll pay the price in the next 2-3 years with injury.

People always say Borg had it tougher than say Nadal but he never won a HC slam and grass courts were very dry in those 70s summers making them dustbowls in the 2nd weeks, so were more like RG than you'd think. We're not talking 90s slicker/damper grass. Borg is however a very definite parallel with Nadal....they are the greatest baseliners, Sampras/Federer the greatest offensive players.

Watch some Borg games. At Wimbledon he was serving and volleying almost all the time. It's rubbish to say he was like Nadal. It was a completely different time, and he wasn't.

Yes Jubba, we recognise that the Olympics is a mega event and these guys love to be a part of it.
Having said that, once the game returns to its base the currency is Slams, weeks at #1, year end Masters championships and Masters tournaments. That's the sport.

It's like the football Word Club Championship. Everyone would love to win it but compared to league titles or Champions Leagues it's a sideshow. The parallels are strong though because a while back teams would ignore it, yet now they take it more seriously.

_homogenised_ wrote:Taking 5 in the Open Era as the benchmark, 5 is probably GREAT (Murray won't be reaching it)

Didn't you say he wouldn't be reaching 1?  

It's a rhetorical question, please don't answer - simply because we know it will have at least two of "lucky", "Murrray", "pusher" in it

In a national sense, Murray is already firmly cemented as a Great with this Wimbledon win.  No other win would have quite this emotional impact.  For two weeks every summer, millions of people sit down to watch Wimbledon and tens of thousands make their way to SW19 - for two weeks, tennis transcends football as the national sport.

It's a bit like England managing to win the World Cup!  In a sense, that is the magnitude of Murray's win at the AELTC.

lydian wrote:OG aside, good or bad, Murray has got a long way to go to be defined as a great of the game. Time, or perhaps his body, isn't on his side either. If he can get to 6+ slams then the discussion gets interesting but I just don't see that happening...he's redlining a more physically based, more one dimensional retrieval-based game to get these wins and feel he'll pay the price in the next 2-3 years with injury

 
 
 
Agree with the first part and then as usual, when discussing Andy's playing style, it decends into such farce I thought homgenised had taken over
 
For someone who's game is "more physically based, more one dimensional retrieval-based game", it's amazing how many on these boards seem to think that he's always the fittest once he gets to the finals. Shouldn't he be knackered having run 10 marathons previously? Yes he runs more than Novak or Roger - but so what? Doesn't automatically make your statement correct. Has he no skills? Maybe his return of serve is one of the keys to his success. Oh I forgot, there are no running skills involved in that - only natural ability  
 
If it's that easy, why aren't the others doing it? I mean if fitness is such a basic requirement - why don't we get Mo Farah to pick up a raquet  
 
Lydian, I have great respect for you, but I do not see where you are coming from. Murray now has shorter points than he used to do and a better first serve to quicken points even further. Yes, he often has attritional matches - but, if you notice, rarely in the opening rounds. This is significant, because it means he can come into latter rounds as fit as his rivals (no fitter) then it's about who has the most cunning / variety / sharpness of mind, i.e. skills.
 
Murray will simply improve his game craft as the years go on. He's a stubborn mule. After his Nole defeat at Aus 11' he pointedly got agitated at people saying that he needed to quicken points - more or less saying that he like his variety game and didn't want to become some kind of boring ball basher (that some on these boards seem to love - I mean, come on, Michael Stich ). With Lendl at his helm he now has fewer rallies and goes for the kill more often. Expect more improvement in the forehand (a confidence shot for him) and the second serve in the coming years. Then with his natural touch, great wrists, reflexes etc he's enough to keep going into his 30's. If he stays fit of course
 
I mentioned years ago (2009) that he reminded me of Andre Agassi with a bit of Connors thrown in, only to be laughed at - as people only bothered to remember the latter day version of Agassi. What I mean is that like Agassi, it's taken a long time for him to be happy with his game and all other distractions, but the talent was always there. And like Agassi, as his career has progressed, he's started standing closer to the baseline etc
 
You may not like him as a player Lydian, but please stop giving the impression that the only strength of Murray is his ability to run the ball down

JubbaIsle wrote:So Olympic gold is a worthless chink of metal that doesn't deserve mention in the same breath as a Masters event ?

You lot are amazing.

Obviously, some of the opinions on here do not match that of players and the public who really matter.

Sorry Jubba. I realise now that I'm idiot who is incapable of reaching a conclusion in a rational way.

Although I'm a little disappointed that the opinions of the public really matter but mine, as a member of the public, do not.

Fortunately I have you as the voice of the people to set me straight.