UK Newspaper Article on Andy Murray's Slam Failure [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

UK Newspaper Article on Andy Murray's Slam Failure

chris whiteside
09-10-2010, 03:13 PM
Here's a link to an article in today's UK Daily Telegraph on the failure of Andy Murray to win a Slam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/7992746/Matthew-Norman-the-phantom-menace-that-stops-Andy-Murray-being-a-star.html

I could never make my mind up whether Andy was likely to win a Slam or not but from before Wimbledon 2009 to this year's tournament I came to believe he could.

Unfortunately I don't see it now - I think this article has hit the nail on the head.

ApproachShot
09-10-2010, 03:27 PM
It's a good article. I like reading the tennis section of the Telegraph.

Nonetheless I do think that there is a tendency in the British press to over-analyse sporting performance - primarily (though not exclusively) this is largely attributable to multiple failures and high national expectations.

Perhaps tennis observers, analysts, commentators and even players should take a step back and look at things from a different angle. While success in the sport is mostly due to skill and talent, a result in a given match is the result of a multitude of factors: physical fitness, mentality, strategic match-up with the opponent, external / atmospheric conditions and a degree of randomness are but some of these. A small tinkering with any of these variables can lead to multiplied effects that can influence a small number of important points in a match that can, as a result, affect the outcome either way.

Murray in my opinion is good enough to win a slam; he has even put himself to within 3 sets of winning one on 2 separate occasions. But that he hasn't translated it into a victory yet is nothing to be unduly alarmed with. Not only has he the misfortune of playing in the Fedal era, but perhaps equally as pertinently, the repeated 'failure' of bringing together all elements of success (as mentioned above) might have resulted in one bad performance in the entire tournament and thus for the slam trophy to elude him.

People need to appreciate that just because some things should or might happen, doesn't necessarily mean that they will happen. Indeed if that were the case, then I think a number of posters would state that Gaudio should not have won a slam. On a wider point there is a case for stating that we are all fooled by randomness to some degree.

The way I see it is that if Murray wins a Grand Slam tournament or two (bearing in mind that he still has a fair few years left in him) then great - I don't think there is a case that he doesn't merit the achievement. But if it doesn't happen sometime in his career then it is just one of those things that you have to accept. Given his non-Slam success, he can certainly be proud of what he has achieved thus far.

ktdude
09-10-2010, 03:30 PM
I commented on this subject in another thread so I'm not going to repeat myself, but I did find this article a good read. The last paragraph in particular made me laugh; I wonder in all seriousness if this was possible, how well Murray would do?

laurie-1
09-10-2010, 03:53 PM
I was a good article, it was also a witty article.

But in the end it was a typically British article. That is, the British media thrive on these sort of scenarios where the Great British hope fails to deliver at the critical moment.

There have been many successes by British sportsmen over the last 10 years ranging from Athletics to Rugby to Cycling to Formula One. Or is that "Unbritish" to actually have winners?

ktdude
09-10-2010, 03:59 PM
I was a good article, it was also a witty article.

But in the end it was a typically British article. That is, the British media thrive on these sort of scenarios where the Great British hope fails to deliver at the critical moment.

There have been many successes by British sportsmen over the last 10 years ranging from Athletics to Rugby to Cycling to Formula One. Or is that "Unbritish" to actually have winners?
What would we do if we actually won something major? I don't think we'd know where to put ourselves!

Having said that, our performance at the last Olympics was very good, much better than expected - but mostly in lesser known or lesser-supported sports. Maybe that's the key!

Sapeod
09-10-2010, 04:01 PM
Andy will still win slams.

I don't see why everyone is worrying.

ApproachShot
09-10-2010, 04:02 PM
I was a good article, it was also a witty article.

But in the end it was a typically British article. That is, the British media thrive on these sort of scenarios where the Great British hope fails to deliver at the critical moment.

There have been many successes by British sportsmen over the last 10 years ranging from Athletics to Rugby to Cycling to Formula One. Or is that "Unbritish" to actually have winners?

It's a bit unfortunate, but performance on the football pitch in major competitions seems to set the temperament of the majority (or at least the most vocal) sports journalists. Murray is a victim of it in as much the cricket, snooker, rugby, rowing, swimming, cycling and Formula 1 sports men and women are.

Sillyrabbit
09-10-2010, 04:07 PM
The point made about Murray in relation to his mindset when he's facing Nadal is a very good one.

NadalSharapova
09-10-2010, 04:14 PM
Andy will still win slams.

I don't see why everyone is worrying.

when did he ever start winning slams?

Sapeod
09-10-2010, 04:18 PM
when did he ever start winning slams?
Since you couldn't understand what I said, I'll put it more simpler for you.

Despite his US Open loss, Murray will still win a slam.

gbmkc
09-10-2010, 07:06 PM
Good article, especially the analysis of the way he plays Nadal. It's true. he thinks he can outlast everyone else, so why goon the offensive. But he did this summer, so...

Andy's a conundrum. I knew the British media was going to get all over him. It's their way.

finishingmove
09-10-2010, 07:16 PM
i agree with one thing - his problem is being british.

i'm not even exposed to the british media that much, and i'm sick of how they go into analyzing every single aspect of his life and game. this article being no exception.

murray should go live on a farm in kazakhstan, he'd be a national davis cup hero and a multiple grand slam winner.

Nathaliia
09-10-2010, 07:21 PM
Where have you been for one year man, jail?

Topspindoctor
09-10-2010, 07:21 PM
I hate it how Murray always plays out of his mind against Nadal. Even on Nadal's good surface (grass) it was very close :o

Orka_n
09-10-2010, 07:24 PM
Andy will still win slams.

I don't see why everyone is worrying.To be fair, you said he'd win the two latest slams and he's failed miserably so far. :)

DrJules
09-10-2010, 07:35 PM
"If McKenna could hypnotise Murray to believe he is German or Australian, and always to see Nadal on the other side of the net, he would confirm himself as the world’s preeminent hard court player at US and Australian Opens, as he does in the Masters series events he routinely wins with the capacious self-belief that evaporated so alarmingly in New York this week."

Loved the comment above from the article.

Maybe Federer should see the same hypnotist to believe he is playing anybody but Nadal.

Ibracadabra
09-10-2010, 07:39 PM
I've been saying ever since the start of his career his game cannot win slams unfortunately. You need a big game for slams and murray doesn't has a consistent point winning shot. Thus he will never win one or has little to no chance.

DrJules
09-10-2010, 07:41 PM
I've been saying ever since the start of his career his game cannot win slams unfortunately. You need a big game for slams and murray doesn't has a consistent point winning shot. Thus he will never win one or has little to no chance.

In 2 wins over Nadal at GS events he showed there was enough game.

I am sure there have been 1 GS winners with less game.

nobama
09-10-2010, 07:59 PM
Murray forum http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=436

Ibracadabra
09-10-2010, 08:02 PM
In 2 wins over Nadal at GS events he showed there was enough game.

I am sure there have been 1 GS winners with less game.

Hewitt, but thats besides the point way too many capable ball bashers who can beat murray and quite a few more talented who haven't got the brain like stan. Murray will be very lucky to win a slam in this era.

Sapeod
09-10-2010, 08:39 PM
To be fair, you said he'd win the two latest slams and he's failed miserably so far. :)
2 slams.
2.
How many are there left in his career? :scratch:
If he plays his best level for another 5 years, let's say, there are 20 slams.
So he has plenty of chances :wavey:

Ibracadabra
09-10-2010, 09:13 PM
Murray is clearly past his best though, he's the same player as leytonn.

Sapeod
09-10-2010, 10:59 PM
Murray is clearly past his best though, he's the same player as leytonn.
Lleyton.

I dont't care anymore if you spell things wrong and have bad punctuation half the time, but good grief, get players' names right at least.

Nole fan
09-10-2010, 11:00 PM
It's a good article. I like reading the tennis section of the Telegraph.

Nonetheless I do think that there is a tendency in the British press to over-analyse sporting performance - primarily (though not exclusively) this is largely attributable to multiple failures and high national expectations.

Perhaps tennis observers, analysts, commentators and even players should take a step back and look at things from a different angle. While success in the sport is mostly due to skill and talent, a result in a given match is the result of a multitude of factors: physical fitness, mentality, strategic match-up with the opponent, external / atmospheric conditions and a degree of randomness are but some of these. A small tinkering with any of these variables can lead to multiplied effects that can influence a small number of important points in a match that can, as a result, affect the outcome either way.

Murray in my opinion is good enough to win a slam; he has even put himself to within 3 sets of winning one on 2 separate occasions. But that he hasn't translated it into a victory yet is nothing to be unduly alarmed with. Not only has he the misfortune of playing in the Fedal era, but perhaps equally as pertinently, the repeated 'failure' of bringing together all elements of success (as mentioned above) might have resulted in one bad performance in the entire tournament and thus for the slam trophy to elude him.

People need to appreciate that just because some things should or might happen, doesn't necessarily mean that they will happen. Indeed if that were the case, then I think a number of posters would state that Gaudio should not have won a slam. On a wider point there is a case for stating that we are all fooled by randomness to some degree.

The way I see it is that if Murray wins a Grand Slam tournament or two (bearing in mind that he still has a fair few years left in him) then great - I don't think there is a case that he doesn't merit the achievement. But if it doesn't happen sometime in his career then it is just one of those things that you have to accept. Given his non-Slam success, he can certainly be proud of what he has achieved thus far.

+1. Voice of reason :yeah:
The same could be said about Djoko

Andi-M
09-11-2010, 01:08 AM
The obessesion with him winning a slam is a huge problem. Both Andy's and the media are fixated on him winning a slam funnily enough its not even just the brittish press, alot of american press commentars seem interested in Murray's progress. He is picked for almost every slam by somebody.

He is mentally hurt by the events of 2010, and hopefully the media will assume he dosent have the pedigree to win a slam. Thats the way he will win one when no-one is expecting it after 3 years of constant expectaion its clear either the weight of expectation needs to change + his hurt pyshe needs some serious work in order for anything to change in the future.

Topspindoctor
09-11-2010, 01:24 AM
2 slams.
2.
How many are there left in his career? :scratch:
If he plays his best level for another 5 years, let's say, there are 20 slams.
So he has plenty of chances :wavey:

Make that 15 slams. There is no way Murray will ever have a chance at RG :bigwave:

River
09-11-2010, 05:02 AM
Next year is his last chance.

But honestly, last year the one to blame was the british media.

This year, Andy's still pressured, but a good portion of the failure rate in GSs is his fault. No use hiding that.

marvin0211
09-11-2010, 05:10 AM
well the media and some tennis guru should not pick him as favorite so as not to jinx him, he has the game but the pressure is really getting into him apparently.

doublebackhand
09-11-2010, 08:16 AM
Make that 15 slams. There is no way Murray will ever have a chance at RG :bigwave:

5 years?? if he doesnt win it in the next 2 years, he wont ever win one. how often do u see players winning their maiden slam after 25? once every decade or so.

2 years, 6 chances (or 4 as i dont see him winning wimbledon, not with the media hype haunting him there)

kooties
09-11-2010, 09:37 AM
Murray will win his slam when he drops out of the top-20

mark my words.

born_on_clay
09-11-2010, 10:10 AM
Andy will still win slams.

I don't see why everyone is worrying.

we're not worrying, we're happy :wavey:

syc23
09-11-2010, 11:12 AM
Don't know why people seem to give Soderling, Berdy, Tsonga, Nalbandian, etc 'more time' to win a slam despite all being a good couple of years older than Murray yet for the Brit, it's game over as far as slams is concerned.

Players develop and peak in their own time, not comparing like for like but guys like Lendl didn't win his first slam until 24 and Agassi lost his first 3 GS finals before bagging his maiden slam at Wimbledon. I can also recall that Agassi skipped Wimbledon in '88 - '90 and missed AO for the first 8 years of his career! It's all what ifs but how many GS would Andre have won had he contested them all?

Sometimes players luck out in their first GS final, had Federer played a Sampras in his first Wimbledon final the outcome might have been similar to Andy being schooled in the USO final. Instead he got Phillipousis and Nadal got Mariano Puerta in his first GS final instead of Kuerten which I'm would have provided a sterner test.