Wimbledon 2011

[comradejambo]

You would'nt think so but if he can break and get the crowd going anything possible!

[Grendel]

You would'nt think so but if he can break and get the crowd going anything possible!

 

There is a difference between being optimistic and living on fantasy island.

[Victorian]

time to try to catch nadal off guard and just swing at everything that moves.

[shaun.lawson]

 

Predictions:

 

Semi-Finals:

 

Nadal v Murray

 

Tsonga v Djokovic

 

Final:

 

Nadal v Djokovic

 

Champion:

 

Nadal

 

[Rudi Skacel]

Murray needs a sports psychologist and quick.

 

Im sorry but when you are 1 set up and 2 games to 1 up, for one bad shot to cost you the match is very poor.

 

He never made a shot after that.

 

He wont win a slam unless he gets his mentality sorted.

[Beats]

First thing Murray needs to do is get that stupid mother of his away to **** out the road.

[Das Root]

Imagine being a top golfer - maybe in the world's top five - and making a 65 at the Masters. Then imagine having to do the same thing all over again in order to stay out in front.

 

How demoralising would that be? But playing Nadal, that's what it's like. Only Djokovic can live with the guy now: if this was Federer, Nadal would be making mincemeat of him as well.

 

 

What, like McIlroy in the US Open? Like Woods in who knows how many tournaments? Golfers play against the course, tennis players against each other. Not really the best comparison.

 

Do you think though that Murray gave it 100% throughout though? Really?

[Das Root]

First thing Murray needs to do is get that stupid mother of his away to **** out the road.

 

 

Yip. She just stares pure hatred when Murray is losing, can't do much for him. Needs to politely tell her to stay at home. But she wouldn't. She's living it large through Murray.

 

Same with that dour faced woman of his. Rather have Nadal's in my corner

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

He wont win a slam.

 

Correct

[Gordon Ramsay]

Murray needs a sports psychologist and quick.

 

Im sorry but when you are 1 set up and 2 games to 1 up, for one bad shot to cost you the match is very poor.

 

He never made a shot after that.

 

He wont win a slam unless he gets his mentality sorted.

 

Exactly this!

 

That shot cost him the match, I turned round to my Dad and said guaranteed he loses this game now and goes on to lose the set. From that point, there was no way back. His mentality is piss poor.

[shaun.lawson]

What, like McIlroy in the US Open? Like Woods in who knows how many tournaments? Golfers play against the course, tennis players against each other. Not really the best comparison.

 

Do you think though that Murray gave it 100% throughout though? Really?

 

History may show that Woods or McIlroy are like Federer or Nadal: that is to say, extraordinary, serial Champions. That depends on Rory, of course - but I said 'top five' golfer, Das Root. Not top one or top two. McIlroy has the ability to dominate his sport; Murray's just one of the best, but not the best.

 

People see Murray's body language, and him missing shots, and they think "bottler", "he's chucked it" and all the rest of it. They seem to have no clue whatsoever that to beat Nadal over five sets requires even a brilliant player like Murray to play not just very well, but pretty much perfectly. Nadal is unbeaten at Wimbledon since 2007, and has lost one match at the French Open ever. That record is completely insane, even more so given how hard he works in every single match - yet people think the match was in the hands of his opponent?

 

Ever since learning his trade on the courts of Barcelona, Murray has been a defensive player. That's his style; that's what he knows. But as he's learned, it won't beat Nadal. So today, he tried something completely different: something completely alien to him. "Why can't he play attacking tennis all the time?", people ask; yet he did today. Sure, he nicked a set with it (and even then, Nadal was the better player during the first set: the break with which Murray took it was against the run of play); but over four sets against probably the greatest player in history, naturally enough, it didn't work.

 

I worry about his demeanour and presence on court too at times: it isn't the demeanour of a Champion at all. But all any tennis player can do is be themselves. No-one will be harder on him than Murray himself after this loss: as I've said before, I think he expected to break his duck in Australia last year, was shellshocked by what followed, and ever since then, has known that in this era of eras, what he has probably isn't quite enough. That must be soul destroying for the guy TBH - but what he could really, really do without are cod psychologists who just don't appreciate what he's up against here at all.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

History may show that Woods or McIlroy are like Federer or Nadal: that is to say, extraordinary, serial Champions. That depends on Rory, of course - but I said 'top five' golfer, Das Root. Not top one or top two. McIlroy has the ability to dominate his sport; Murray's just one of the best, but not the best.

 

People see Murray's body language, and him missing shots, and they think "bottler", "he's chucked it" and all the rest of it. They seem to have no clue whatsoever that to beat Nadal over five sets requires even a brilliant player like Murray to play not just very well, but pretty much perfectly. Nadal is unbeaten at Wimbledon since 2007, and has lost one match at the French Open ever. That record is completely insane, even more so given how hard he works in every single match - yet people think the match was in the hands of his opponent?

 

Ever since learning his trade on the courts of Barcelona, Murray has been a defensive player. That's his style; that's what he knows. But as he's learned, it won't beat Nadal. So today, he tried something completely different: something completely alien to him. "Why can't he play attacking tennis all the time?", people ask; yet he did today. Sure, he nicked a set with it (and even then, Nadal was the better player during the first set: the break with which Murray took it was against the run of play); but over four sets against probably the greatest player in history, naturally enough, it didn't work.

 

I worry about his demeanour and presence on court too at times: it isn't the demeanour of a Champion at all. But all any tennis player can do is be themselves. No-one will be harder on him than Murray himself after this loss: as I've said before, I think he expected to break his duck in Australia last year, was shellshocked by what followed, and ever since then, has known that in this era of eras, what he has probably isn't quite enough. That must be soul destroying for the guy TBH - but what he could really, really do without are cod psychologists who just don't appreciate what he's up against here at all.

 

Nadal deserves his recognition but the fact remains that Murray sold him the second set for peanuts.

[Randy Marsh]

Murray is a better player than Nadal on hardcourt. Sadly he is not on Grass and Clay.

 

Hopefully he takes this form into the U.S. Open as that will be his best chance to win a slam.

[shaun.lawson]

Murray is a better player than Nadal on hardcourt. Sadly he is not on Grass and Clay.

 

Hopefully he takes this form into the U.S. Open as that will be his best chance to win a slam.

 

Sorry - no he isn't. In all likelihood, just like Wimbledon, and just like most of men's tennis now, the US Open will be between Nadal and Djokovic. For a dark horse, try Del Potro; not Murray.

[Gizmo]

All about the attitude. And it's chalk and cheese for Murray in comparison between 1st set and now. 6-0 final set? I would imagine so. And that's not down to Nadal being fantastic, but Murray giving up.

 

No, it's not really as clear cut as that.

 

Murray put 120% into the first set and beginning of the second. Inevitably it wasn't enough - Nadal still managed to withstand that and turn the tide. Naturally that level - which is probably unsustainable, drops.

 

It's akin to watching a team put on a fantastic show against the old firm, their absolute A game, all players on top top form - and still lose out in the end. You put everything in, outplay them, go 2 up and, when they come back with the equaliser, the belief drops and that effort becomes impossible to keep up.

 

I reckon Murray WILL win a slam in the end. It may take a bit of luck with Nadal missing out due to injury or something, but his form on grass shows he still has the game to win one.

[Randy Marsh]

Sorry - no he isn't. In all likelihood, just like Wimbledon, and just like most of men's tennis now, the US Open will be between Nadal and Djokovic. For a dark horse, try Del Potro; not Murray.

 

 

He has proved at the US and Australian Open he can match him on hardcourt. They have played each other 3 times at slams on hardcourt and Murray has won twice.

[shaun.lawson]

He has proved at the US and Australian Open he can match him on hardcourt. They have played each other 3 times at slams on hardcourt and Murray has won twice.

 

One of those two wins was in 2008, before Nadal was good enough on American hard courts. In the other, he was injured and not himself. People (including myself) have hyped Murray up before the last two US Opens - and he ended up losing in round 3 to Warwinka, and round 4 to Cilic.

 

Nadal has won two Grand Slams on hard courts: beating the guy he'll probably replace as Greatest Who Ever Lived in one final, beating the guy who's just become world number one in the other. Those two players, incidentally, both played Murray in hard court Slam finals; and both pulverised him in straight sets: Federer, indeed, did it twice.

 

Since returning from injury, Nadal has won four out of the last five Grand Slams. On Sunday, he'll probably make it five from six. You don't do that without being a ******* awesome all court player; Murray's merely a very good one.

[shaun.lawson]

No, it's not really as clear cut as that.

 

Murray put 120% into the first set and beginning of the second. Inevitably it wasn't enough - Nadal still managed to withstand that and turn the tide. Naturally that level - which is probably unsustainable, drops.

 

It's akin to watching a team put on a fantastic show against the old firm, their absolute A game, all players on top top form - and still lose out in the end. You put everything in, outplay them, go 2 up and, when they come back with the equaliser, the belief drops and that effort becomes impossible to keep up.

 

I reckon Murray WILL win a slam in the end. It may take a bit of luck with Nadal missing out due to injury or something, but his form on grass shows he still has the game to win one.

 

I think Murray will win the Olympic gold medal for some reason; but I don't think he'll win a Slam now. Something in my gut (and much more importantly, in his too, I suspect) tells me it ain't gonna happen.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

I think Murray will win the Olympic gold medal for some reason; but I don't think he'll win a Slam now. Something in my gut (and much more importantly, in his too, I suspect) tells me it ain't gonna happen.

 

Welcome to the club. About two years ago, it became apparent to me that the combined class and consistency of federer nadal and Novak would leave no room for Murray. I don't see him getting better tbh, and that makes me think that his chance has passed. Before he knows it, other players will be swarming up from below him in the rankings

[Guest Ultraviolet Catastrophe]

.

[Randy Marsh]

Welcome to the club. About two years ago, it became apparent to me that the combined class and consistency of federer nadal and Novak would leave no room for Murray. I don't see him getting better tbh, and that makes me think that his chance has passed. Before he knows it, other players will be swarming up from below him in the rankings

 

 

Thats what worries me now. Its only a matter of time before new younger players make a challenge on the top 4. I would put money on it being guys like Tomic and Harrison who could come good next year.

[H2]

I know how Murray could win a major.

Stop wearing green. He'll always know and feel wee in Green.

[Coco]

I'm not really interested in tennis and have no great interest in any of the men playing the game.

 

But I harbour an absolutely irrational dislike for Andy Murray and am delighted when he loses. I can't explain why

[Randy Marsh]

Andy Murray is the only world class sportsman (aside from Chris Hoy) Scotland has.

 

Its sad when people here dont support him.

[Say What Again]

Ach well, Murray's out so.....

 

Some of this tomorrow please!

 

 

[H2]

Andy Murray is the only world class sportsman (aside from Chris Hoy) Scotland has.

 

Its sad when people here dont support him.

 

That is debatable. In tennis there is a league of three, and Murray ain't in it.

 

While being Scottish helps for support there are other requirements. I recall the arrogance of him a few years ago when an interviewer trying to help him promote himslef on the run up to wimbeldon (A home Biritish tornament) asked him about winning it and he said he'd rather wiin the US Open. Apart from that Nadal is a far superior player, and comes over as a genuine and nice bloke.

[Cade]

I did not like him taking the piss out of lesser opponents with all his hibee-flair-through-the-legs-shots in the earlier rounds.

 

He lacks the mental strength to win a grand slam. Just like his football team, a few diddy cups is all he'll ever win.

[bighusref]

What a dreadfully sad ending for the Hibs toley.

 

[The Old Tolbooth]

Andy Murray is the only world class sportsman (aside from Chris Hoy) Scotland has.

 

Its sad when people here dont support him.

I didn't see anything in the small print that stated we had to support him just because he's Scottish

[bighusref]

I didn't see anything in the small print that stated we had to support him just because he's Scottish

 

It's a rule, John. Absolutely every Scottish person is brilliant and we must support them.

 

Andy Murray, The Proclaimers, George Galloway, Dennis Neilsen, Thomas Hamilton, that dude from The Scheme, Kenny Richey and Ally McCoist. I support them all, because convention tells me to.

[Smack]

What would you give to be that bandage on the inside of Maria's thigh? Hope she wins. I've got a few quid on 2-0.

[Smack]

wtf...it's gone!

[Smack]

That Kvitova bird's no bad! *shiting myself*

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Warching the tour de France instead

[vegas-voss]

Watched the first couple of games in 3D totally gives a different perspective to the game.You really see how fast those shots are traveling although overall it's not the best of angles for watching the match as the camera is constantly behind the one end.

[japanjambo]

Sharapova screaming does ma head in! C'mon Kvitova!

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Just flicked over in ads. Sharapova looks dogshit (ie her tennis)

[shaun.lawson]

Quite a number of pundits tipped Kvitova to win the French Open: she's been incredibly consistent over the past year, and tends not to let opponents back in by beating herself. But I'm still surprised she's playing this well in her first Grand Slam final.

 

Sharapova can be brittle, and her game has always had clear weaknesses. But it feels like the match is in her opponent's hands: can Kvitova hold herself together and do to Maria what the latter did to Serena Williams in 2004?

[jack D and coke]

I generally think womens tennis is awful but that lass Kvitova can play a bit. Hope she leathers Sharapova, the grunting and screaming is beyond a joke.

 

On a side note why has the serve and volley game just completely disappeared from tennis? Nobody plays that way anymore.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

The courts are too fast these days

[jack D and coke]

The courts are too fast these days

Too fast for serve and volley? Is that the reason?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Think so. Might be making this up but I heard McEnroe say that the ball would be past you before you got anywhere near the net. Lawson?

[vegas-voss]

Too fast for serve and volley? Is that the reason?

The game has just become totally uniformed now.No real difference between surfaces.

[shaun.lawson]

The courts are too fast these days

 

No - the courts are too slow these days.

 

Way back in the 90s, men's grasscourt tennis had become completely unwatchable: blink and you'd miss it. This meant that Wimbledon, traditionally the closest thing to a World Championship in tennis, was only being won by ballistic servers: Sampras more or less won it on one leg in 2000, Ivanisevic in 2001 was probably the weakest of the semi-finalists as a pure tennis player, but won regardless because of his extraordinary serve.

 

To their eternal credit, the AELTC realised they had to do something to protect their tournament: and in 2002, relaid the courts with much slower rye grass. That year, Lleyton Hewitt became the first baseliner to win the men's singles for a decade - and over the years since, the courts have got slower every year, and the game changed completely as a result.

 

Now, the ball bounces much higher, and the serve has a lot less of an advantage. If the BBC was to put up a graphic of where Federer's serves bounced in 2003, and compared it to now, for example, the difference would be very obvious.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

I was indeed making that up. Back to the tour de France....

[vegas-voss]

Sharapova's service games are shockersEveryone of them is a struggle

[shaun.lawson]

The game has just become totally uniformed now.No real difference between surfaces.

 

Because of the surface changes, players have to be all-courters nowadays. It wasn't just Wimbledon which was in trouble a few years back: the French was being won by borderline journeymen who were hopeless on any surface other than clay, and this left the US Open as the only real 'democratic' Grand Slam, especially as Australia is played too early in the year, when players aren't at their sharpest yet.

 

But now, like a chicken and egg effect, all top players can play on pretty much all surfaces. This does lead to uniformity - but also greater credibility for all four Slams, and the leading players too.

[jack D and coke]

No - the courts are too slow these days.

 

Way back in the 90s, men's grasscourt tennis had become completely unwatchable: blink and you'd miss it. This meant that Wimbledon, traditionally the closest thing to a World Championship in tennis, was only being won by ballistic servers: Sampras more or less won it on one leg in 2000, Ivanisevic in 2001 was probably the weakest of the semi-finalists as a pure tennis player, but won regardless because of his extraordinary serve.

 

To their eternal credit, the AELTC realised they had to do something to protect their tournament: and in 2002, relaid the courts with much slower rye grass. That year, Lleyton Hewitt became the first baseliner to win the men's singles for a decade - and over the years since, the courts have got slower every year, and the game changed completely as a result.

 

Now, the ball bounces much higher, and the serve has a lot less of an advantage. If the BBC was to put up a graphic of where Federer's serves bounced in 2003, and compared it to now, for example, the difference would be very obvious.

Certainly better rallies nowadays thats for sure. Just i was reading a bit by Becker the other day saying the men dont use their serve enough these days. Becker used to serve at around the 140mph mark but none of the top mens players get anywhere near that nowadays. Surely with the technology and improvements in strings, balls etc making your serve a weapon and attacking the net would give you an advantage? Serve and volley was a really attacking form of tennis. It seems very defensive these days to me trying to win purely from the baseline.

[shaun.lawson]

Certainly better rallies nowadays thats for sure. Just i was reading a bit by Becker the other day saying the men dont use their serve enough these days. Becker used to serve at around the 140mph mark but none of the top mens players get anywhere near that nowadays. Surely with the technology and improvements in strings, balls etc making your serve a weapon and attacking the net would give you an advantage? Serve and volley was a really attacking form of tennis. It seems very defensive these days to me trying to win purely from the baseline.

 

You can't attack the net - because as the ball bounces higher and more slowly, it's far, far easier for the receiver to blast it past the server. Sampras and Becker often comment on the lack of serve-volleyers nowadays: Henman was pretty much the last of a dying breed. But they don't seem to have grasped how much the sport has changed.

 

In 2000, Pat Rafter met Andre Agassi in an absolutely epic semi-final: the best match seen at Wimbledon in living memory. The rallies were wonderful; it was just so refreshing to watch. Now, because of the court changes, we get matches like that every single year - which is fabulous for Wimbledon, which has reclaimed its position as the undisputed number one tournament in the world.

[vegas-voss]

Certainly better rallies nowadays thats for sure. Just i was reading a bit by Becker the other day saying the men dont use their serve enough these days. Becker used to serve at around the 140mph mark but none of the top mens players get anywhere near that nowadays. Surely with the technology and improvements in strings, balls etc making your serve a weapon and attacking the net would give you an advantage? Serve and volley was a really attacking form of tennis. It seems very defensive these days to me trying to win purely from the baseline.

I heard McEnroe last week say that basically none of the players can really volley now.