Murray: under appreciated or overrated?

First topic message reminder :

I would say overrated    

But what do other members of 606v2 think?

GB are beaten in the Hopman Cup losing 2-1 to Poland. Murray beat Janowicz 6-2 6-4 but loses for Heather Watson and defeat in the mixed doubles leave GB needing to beat Australia in their next match. Still at least Murray kept his winning momentum going.

Haven't seen any of the Murray matches, but looks like he's his started in the same manner as the 2010 to 2013 years, i.e. where we'd like him to be

lags72 wrote:Yes we can rely on IMBL with all the usual bias to come to socal's support.

Cue the traditional line from IMBL of Federer was quite right .... or ...I quite like Federer ......BUT ....now that I've spotted an angle where I can have a pot at him, let's do exactly that. Old habits die hard, after all.

Lags, the fact is that it has always for some reason been OK to criticise Roger's rivals for all manner of things, but not him for the same 'offence'

I've lost count the number of times, I've been told I've got something against him, despite me consistently saying that he's in my Top 5 all time list (Connors, Mac, Agassi, Fed and now Murray (who replaces Mecir in case anyone's interested )

I did think, he took into account the opposition - which in fairness I don't blame him for. Why on earth would anyone take on a peak Nole if they weren't fully fit?

Just to clarify, I said I thought Federer was right not to play the WTF final earlier in this thread itself, why on earth Lags said that ^ I'm not sure. I asked Lags to show any evidence for his accusation, and there was no specific reply.

banbro, we know that this hypersensitivity to any criticism of Federer exists with many of his fans. That is because of the near demigod status that has been created for the man. That is why if you do criticize Roger his legion of cyberbody guards will pull out their metaphorical tasers to defend him. Ruffin and lags are two of those who can't really broke any criticism of the man's conduct in any respect. Apparently, if the apostles were right Federer is the second faultless man in human history and if you dare to oppose said contention then beware.

I would like lags and Ruffian to answer me in Federer's I don't know decade or more at the top what one single thing have they ever criticized the man for or what criticism has been valid? Because I am scratching my head to think of anything they have ever criticized Fed for or any criticism of him that they did not denounce as invalid or a result of some haters ulterior motivations. I say both good and bad things about fed, they only say good things and can't tolerate anyone says anything bad; which type of critic is more credible? If I am irrational negative about Fed then they are irrationally situating themselves in the first pew of the church of the Rog.

temporary21 wrote:Lags apart from a dislike of imbl. What's your point in relation to the current topic?

I guess this should apply to all posters when discussing other posters.

and it does..., this argument has been resolved already so shall we get back on topic now Julius?

...except for me, I am allowed by ATP decree to take a dig at others.

LF & JHM approved, thank you very much.

Wow - this has moved away from the original post somewhat

My opinion is that in the greater public Murray has been a little under appreciated except around Wimbledon time

to win 2 slams is a fantastic achievement but after the first US one, there was hardly a ripple in the press or media. It was all football still

I think in the last year it has about evened up - shame Murray has not got back to his best though - but I still think he is not really that well appreciated for what he did

And anyone saying h had a privileged background should really do their homework - not rich parents bu very committed