Murray's Clearly Not Turning Into Henman mark II

[MaxAndRuby]

I think this comparison is tenuous at best. As much as I dislike(what's to like?) Murray, to compare him with 'Tiger' Tim is simply unfair. Tim Henman was mediocrity personified, and an unwilling idol to upper class, english tennis enthusiasts, who were conveniently blind.

He knows his wine though!

[chippy17]

As has been said on a Sports post, Murray has done a very good job of manipulating the rankings and frankly does not deserve his No2 spot in terms of talent, yet, much like Safina in the women's game, she is world No1 and has yet to win a slam

He is a good player but whether he will be a great player still remains to be seen, he will retain his no2 spot after the US I think, but we all know who it really belongs to. he is top 10 for sure but there are a fair few other players who I personally rate higher than Murray. And now that people have figured out how to beat his 'anti-tennis' game he is gonig to lose a lot more.

As for comparing him to Henman that remains to be seen, but give Tim a break he was a very good player for a very long time just could not take that one (huge) step to becoming a slam winner and frankly Murray has yet to do that either, he has gone one better than Henman but he still lost!

Edited by chippy17 on Friday 11th September 14:09

[Greenie]

im said:

Greenie said:

im said:

Greenie said:

Anyway we both seem pretty sure about our views so perhaps we could make it interesting. Are you a sporting man?

Oh this is gonna be interesting...

Not sure if we are allowed to use PH as a gambling format so perhaps we should confirm by email so PM me. Would suggest a GS in the next 3 years and for a few hundred to make the wait worthwhile! Mind you should be all done by dusted by Jan next year at Melbourne.

Nah - not 3 years...crikey, even I'll win one in that time frame...2 years for £100 to the charity of my/your choice?

I'd feel better at 3 years!! Mind you I'll take £100 for you not winning one anytime soon

[im]

Greenie said:

im said:

Greenie said:

im said:

Greenie said:

Anyway we both seem pretty sure about our views so perhaps we could make it interesting. Are you a sporting man?

Oh this is gonna be interesting...

Not sure if we are allowed to use PH as a gambling format so perhaps we should confirm by email so PM me. Would suggest a GS in the next 3 years and for a few hundred to make the wait worthwhile! Mind you should be all done by dusted by Jan next year at Melbourne.

Nah - not 3 years...crikey, even I'll win one in that time frame...2 years for £100 to the charity of my/your choice?

I'd feel better at 3 years!! Mind you I'll take £100 for you not winning one anytime soon

OK...can I include Smash Court Tennis on the PS3 where I'm a world beater...?

Edited by im on Friday 11th September 16:14

[deevlash]

derestrictor said:

Spirit of '66

I'm fairly certain Murray winning anything will have nothing to do with the spirit of '66!

[sherman]

deevlash said:

derestrictor said:

Spirit of '66

I'm fairly certain Murray winning anything will have nothing to do with the spirit of '66!

I think its more likely to be the spirirt oof '67'

Edited by sherman on Saturday 12th September 01:48

[elster]

im said:

Greenie said:

So he has a 6-3 record against the greatest tennis player of all time and you dismiss it. Who else has a better record against Federer?

...and in Grand Slam Head-To-Heads?

I mean come on, even Lleyton Hewitt had a slam in the bag at 19.

Sorry, but again I think we Brits have over-hyped one of own - I hope he succeeds but I fear he'll now slide down the table into the also-rans.

All IMHO

Well you obviously don't watch his matches much. He clearly is one of the top 3/4 players in the world. He may be a bit older to get into it than some others but that doesn't matter. I am sure he will win a GrandSlam.

Also you can't call it British hype, the whole world is in on the act in that case then. I sometimes watch foreign live feeds for tennis matches the players and commentators agree with me.

[derestrictor]

deevlash said:

derestrictor said:

Spirit of '66

I'm fairly certain Murray winning anything will have nothing to do with the spirit of '66!

A very good point.

[JNW1]

chippy17 said:

As has been said on a Sports post, Murray has done a very good job of manipulating the rankings and frankly does not deserve his No2 spot in terms of talent, yet, much like Safina in the women's game, she is world No1 and has yet to win a slam

He is a good player but whether he will be a great player still remains to be seen, he will retain his no2 spot after the US I think, but we all know who it really belongs to. he is top 10 for sure but there are a fair few other players who I personally rate higher than Murray. And now that people have figured out how to beat his 'anti-tennis' game he is gonig to lose a lot more.

Edited by chippy17 on Friday 11th September 14:09

I haven't seen the Sports post that talks about Murray manipulating the rankings but if that's what it says I suspect the author knows little about tennis or the ranking system!

I understand why people are questioning whether the ranking system gives enough weight to the Grand Slams (mainly a result of Safina's ranking) but the notion that Murray is at number 2 because he's manipulated the system is plain rubbish! He hasn't gone round playing and winning minor events just to accumulate ranking points and, while Nadal was injured across the summer, he was back for the hardcourt season in North America and therefore missed only a couple of the tournaments that Murray played (Queens and Wimbledon). I accept that Nadal won both of those events in 2008 - and therefore dropped a lot of ranking points by missing them this year - but that's hardly Murray's fault so how can he be accused of manipulating the system to get the number 2 ranking? As I say, plain rubbish!

In terms of his performance at the US Open, Murray clearly had a bad day against an opponent who was inspired; however, that can happen and I think it's a bit premature to write him off just because of that match. That said, I do agree that there are other players who will catch and overtake him unless he continues to work on improving his game (Del Potro for one!) so he certainly can't afford to rest on his laurels (and I'm sure he won't!).

[eldudereno]

JNW1 said:

chippy17 said:

As has been said on a Sports post, Murray has done a very good job of manipulating the rankings and frankly does not deserve his No2 spot in terms of talent, yet, much like Safina in the women's game, she is world No1 and has yet to win a slam

He is a good player but whether he will be a great player still remains to be seen, he will retain his no2 spot after the US I think, but we all know who it really belongs to. he is top 10 for sure but there are a fair few other players who I personally rate higher than Murray. And now that people have figured out how to beat his 'anti-tennis' game he is gonig to lose a lot more.

Edited by chippy17 on Friday 11th September 14:09

I haven't seen the Sports post that talks about Murray manipulating the rankings but if that's what it says I suspect the author knows little about tennis or the ranking system!

I understand why people are questioning whether the ranking system gives enough weight to the Grand Slams (mainly a result of Safina's ranking) but the notion that Murray is at number 2 because he's manipulated the system is plain rubbish! He hasn't gone round playing and winning minor events just to accumulate ranking points and, while Nadal was injured across the summer, he was back for the hardcourt season in North America and therefore missed only a couple of the tournaments that Murray played (Queens and Wimbledon). I accept that Nadal won both of those events in 2008 - and therefore dropped a lot of ranking points by missing them this year - but that's hardly Murray's fault so how can he be accused of manipulating the system to get the number 2 ranking? As I say, plain rubbish!

In terms of his performance at the US Open, Murray clearly had a bad day against an opponent who was inspired; however, that can happen and I think it's a bit premature to write him off just because of that match. That said, I do agree that there are other players who will catch and overtake him unless he continues to work on improving his game (Del Potro for one!) so he certainly can't afford to rest on his laurels (and I'm sure he won't!).

I couldn't agree more, manipulating the rankings, how the hell does he do that then? Over the last year Murray has beaten all of the top players and that inlcudes Federer. His recent form has been poor but he got to number 2 by beating the best out there, it's as simple as that.

[elster]

eldudereno said:

JNW1 said:

chippy17 said:

As has been said on a Sports post, Murray has done a very good job of manipulating the rankings and frankly does not deserve his No2 spot in terms of talent, yet, much like Safina in the women's game, she is world No1 and has yet to win a slam

He is a good player but whether he will be a great player still remains to be seen, he will retain his no2 spot after the US I think, but we all know who it really belongs to. he is top 10 for sure but there are a fair few other players who I personally rate higher than Murray. And now that people have figured out how to beat his 'anti-tennis' game he is gonig to lose a lot more.

Edited by chippy17 on Friday 11th September 14:09

I haven't seen the Sports post that talks about Murray manipulating the rankings but if that's what it says I suspect the author knows little about tennis or the ranking system!

I understand why people are questioning whether the ranking system gives enough weight to the Grand Slams (mainly a result of Safina's ranking) but the notion that Murray is at number 2 because he's manipulated the system is plain rubbish! He hasn't gone round playing and winning minor events just to accumulate ranking points and, while Nadal was injured across the summer, he was back for the hardcourt season in North America and therefore missed only a couple of the tournaments that Murray played (Queens and Wimbledon). I accept that Nadal won both of those events in 2008 - and therefore dropped a lot of ranking points by missing them this year - but that's hardly Murray's fault so how can he be accused of manipulating the system to get the number 2 ranking? As I say, plain rubbish!

In terms of his performance at the US Open, Murray clearly had a bad day against an opponent who was inspired; however, that can happen and I think it's a bit premature to write him off just because of that match. That said, I do agree that there are other players who will catch and overtake him unless he continues to work on improving his game (Del Potro for one!) so he certainly can't afford to rest on his laurels (and I'm sure he won't!).

I couldn't agree more, manipulating the rankings, how the hell does he do that then? Over the last year Murray has beaten all of the top players and that inlcudes Federer. His recent form has been poor but he got to number 2 by beating the best out there, it's as simple as that.

He may not have a Grand Slam under his belt, but is consistently winning masters.

[derestrictor]

He may need to embrace a withering stare, reserved for troublesome officials, perhaps garnered with the threat of a forced, fried Mars Bar feeding?

[ascayman]

elster said:

eldudereno said:

JNW1 said:

chippy17 said:

As has been said on a Sports post, Murray has done a very good job of manipulating the rankings and frankly does not deserve his No2 spot in terms of talent, yet, much like Safina in the women's game, she is world No1 and has yet to win a slam

He is a good player but whether he will be a great player still remains to be seen, he will retain his no2 spot after the US I think, but we all know who it really belongs to. he is top 10 for sure but there are a fair few other players who I personally rate higher than Murray. And now that people have figured out how to beat his 'anti-tennis' game he is gonig to lose a lot more.

Edited by chippy17 on Friday 11th September 14:09

I haven't seen the Sports post that talks about Murray manipulating the rankings but if that's what it says I suspect the author knows little about tennis or the ranking system!

I understand why people are questioning whether the ranking system gives enough weight to the Grand Slams (mainly a result of Safina's ranking) but the notion that Murray is at number 2 because he's manipulated the system is plain rubbish! He hasn't gone round playing and winning minor events just to accumulate ranking points and, while Nadal was injured across the summer, he was back for the hardcourt season in North America and therefore missed only a couple of the tournaments that Murray played (Queens and Wimbledon). I accept that Nadal won both of those events in 2008 - and therefore dropped a lot of ranking points by missing them this year - but that's hardly Murray's fault so how can he be accused of manipulating the system to get the number 2 ranking? As I say, plain rubbish!

In terms of his performance at the US Open, Murray clearly had a bad day against an opponent who was inspired; however, that can happen and I think it's a bit premature to write him off just because of that match. That said, I do agree that there are other players who will catch and overtake him unless he continues to work on improving his game (Del Potro for one!) so he certainly can't afford to rest on his laurels (and I'm sure he won't!).

I couldn't agree more, manipulating the rankings, how the hell does he do that then? Over the last year Murray has beaten all of the top players and that inlcudes Federer. His recent form has been poor but he got to number 2 by beating the best out there, it's as simple as that.

He may not have a Grand Slam under his belt, but is consistently winning masters.

and consistently dissapointing in slams.

[elster]

ascayman said:

and consistently dissapointing in slams.

So out of 4 tournaments he enters he hasn't won those 4 yet. Not bad.

In the past 12 months you do realise there is not a single player in the top seeds he hasn't played and beaten. Unless not had the chance to.

[ascayman]

elster said:

ascayman said:

and consistently dissapointing in slams.

So out of 4 tournaments he enters he hasn't won those 4 yet. Not bad.

he hasnt even got close despite aparently being the 2nd best player in the world.

in the slams he has performed way way way below his ranking.......

[elster]

ascayman said:

elster said:

ascayman said:

and consistently dissapointing in slams.

So out of 4 tournaments he enters he hasn't won those 4 yet. Not bad.

he hasnt even got close despite aparently being the 2nd best player in the world.

in the slams he has performed way way way below his ranking.......

The rankings are based on all tournaments, not just slams.

If you look at him in all tournaments you will see he does live up to his rankings.

If you would like to compare it to football and consider the rankings to be the premier league, the slams are competitions such as European tournaments and FA Cup.

You are saying the only ones that count are the 4 big tournaments. Not the entire season.

You can't compare him to Henman as he has already beaten Henmans wins, and will continue to do so.

You say you know better than everyone else, why is it all the players hold him in such high regard?

[ascayman]

elster said:

ascayman said:

elster said:

ascayman said:

and consistently dissapointing in slams.

So out of 4 tournaments he enters he hasn't won those 4 yet. Not bad.

he hasnt even got close despite aparently being the 2nd best player in the world.

in the slams he has performed way way way below his ranking.......

The rankings are based on all tournaments, not just slams.

If you look at him in all tournaments you will see he does live up to his rankings.

If you would like to compare it to football and consider the rankings to be the premier league, the slams are competitions such as European tournaments and FA Cup.

You are saying the only ones that count are the 4 big tournaments. Not the entire season.

You can't compare him to Henman as he has already beaten Henmans wins, and will continue to do so.

You say you know better than everyone else, why is it all the players hold him in such high regard?

in no particular order

ive not once compared him to henman.

do the other players hold him in such a regard? not sure they do

top top players are only bothered about slams the likes of fed and rafa couldn’t give a toss about the masters series

yes i know how the ranking system works.

well of course he does otherwise he wouldn’t have got the no 2 ranking

comparing tennis to football is mental

[elster]

ascayman said:

in no particular order
ive not once compared him to henman.
Read the title of the thread
do the other players hold him in such a regard? not sure they do
[b]Federer, Nadal, DelPotro, Roddick, Hewitt, Soderling have all commented several times.
top top players are only bothered about slams the likes of fed and rafa couldn’t give a toss about the masters series
So are you saying they don't care about the rankings either then?
yes i know how the ranking system works.
So the slams are only a small part of that
well of course he does otherwise he wouldn’t have got the no 2 ranking

comparing tennis to football is mental

So you are saying comparing a rankings system which is in essence a league to the premier league and the high profile tournaments as slams is stupid?! There is no simpler way to explain it, mainly because that is exactly what it is. I wasn't comparing tennis to football, I was comparing a league to a tournament.

[ascayman]

elster said:

ascayman said:

in no particular order
ive not once compared him to henman.
Read the title of the thread
do the other players hold him in such a regard? not sure they do
[b]Federer, Nadal, DelPotro, Roddick, Hewitt, Soderling have all commented several times.
top top players are only bothered about slams the likes of fed and rafa couldn’t give a toss about the masters series
So are you saying they don't care about the rankings either then?
yes i know how the ranking system works.
So the slams are only a small part of that
well of course he does otherwise he wouldn’t have got the no 2 ranking

comparing tennis to football is mental

So you are saying comparing a rankings system which is in essence a league to the premier league and the high profile tournaments as slams is stupid?! There is no simpler way to explain it, mainly because that is exactly what it is. I wasn't comparing tennis to football, I was comparing a league to a tournament.

yes but i didn’t start the thread and have at no point compared henman to murry as quiet frankly there is nothing to compare them on, murry has already had far far more successful career then henman and he still has another 6/7 years to go.

yeah of course players care about rankings princeably as it gives them better draws in the slams.......

if you gave rafa the choice of the assuie open or to regain his no 1 slot what do you think he'd say?

if you gave federer the choice of three more slams and no 2 in the world or no 1 for the next three years but no slams what do you think he'd take?

[elster]

ascayman said:

yes but i didn’t start the thread and have at no point compared henman to murry as quiet frankly there is nothing to compare them on, murry has already had far far more successful career then henman and he still has another 6/7 years to go.

yeah of course players care about rankings princeably as it gives them better draws in the slams.......

if you gave rafa the choice of the assuie open or to regain his no 1 slot what do you think he'd say?

if you gave federer the choice of three more slams and no 2 in the world or no 1 for the next three years but no slams what do you think he'd take?

Of course you would prefer to be winning slams. That isn't in question, you are saying the players don't care about rankings which they do.