mtenis.pun.pl - forum fanów tenisa ATP
TAK | 88% - 15 | |||||
NIE | 11% - 2 | |||||
|
Ojciec Chrzestny
Pytanie nurtujące wszystkich sympatyków tenisa na Wyspach i niewiele mniejszy procent na całym świecie.
Andy Murray w maju skończy 24 lata, do tej pory, mimo szumnych zapowiedzi, nie udało mu się wygrać turnieju wielkoszlemowego. Szkot był w 2 finałach, w obu przypadkach przegrał z Rogerem Federerem, który wręcz ośmieszył Go w tego typu konfrontacjach (Murray w obu finałach WS nie ugrał nawet seta).
Zapraszam do udziału w ankicie i wyrażania opinii.
Offline
Moderator
Nie wiem. Bo też nie wiem, którego Mareja będziemy mieli okazję oglądać w kolejnych turniejach WS. Każdy kortowy Supermen bywa czasem ciapowatym Clarkiem Kentem, ale u Szkota różnica w jakości gry jest po prosty przerażająca. Konia z rzędem temu, kto wyjaśni mi, co poza wyglądem łączy gościa który w Toronto zmiażdżył rywali swoją pewną i agresywną grą, ze zlanym pasywem bez serwisu, jakiego oglądaliśmy we wcześniejszych i późniejszych występach. Dokąd Murray nie będzie w stanie zagrać całego turnieju WS na swoim najwyższym poziomie, to nie wygra, niby to proste, ale czy łatwe do zrozumienia?
Offline
User
Ostatnio się zastanawiałem ile razy będziemy jeszcze oglądać Murray'a z tegorocznego AO lub chociażby Wimbla, a ile np z USO gdzie zagrał beznadziejnie. Trudno stwierdzić jak się potoczy jego szlemowy los, ale biorąc pod uwagę, że z pewnością zagra kiedyś jakiś stabilny turniej z cyklu WS to szanse rosną. Skoro Del Potro mógł, to czemu nie Szkot.
Ostatnio edytowany przez Jules (16-09-2010 22:04:55)
Offline
Administrator
Ma 23 lata, więc sporo turniejów wielkoszlemowych przed nim. Pewnie w końcu mu się uda, a może będzie tylko lizał finały? Któż to może wiedzieć...?
Offline
User
DUN I LOVE napisał:
Pytanie nurtujące wszystkich sympatyków tenisa na Wyspach i niewiele mniejszy procent na całym świecie.
Andy Murray w maju skończy 24 lata
Zabrzmiało, jakbyśmy mieli co najmniej luty Ja jestem pełen wiary w osiągnięcia wielkoszlemowe Szkota. Powiem więcej, jeśli Murray w końcu się przełamie i zdobędzie pierwsze trofeum, to będą i następne, osiągane już łatwiej. Ja uważam, że Murray ma naprawdę więcej talentu niż Djoković i fakt, że Federer już będzie chyba powoli przestawał się liczyć w walce o największe laury (pewnie nie w najbliższym sezonie), będzie ułatwieniem dla Murraya ( w końcu to ze Szwajcarem przegrał oba finały).
Offline
User
Oczywiście, że wygra. Skoro potrafiły wygrać takie asy jak Johansson, czy Gaudio, to Murray, który talentem przerasta choćby wspomnianego tutaj Djokowicia, że o całej grupie amerykańskiej nie wspomnę, prędzej czy później ustrzeli coś dużego. Wydaje mi się, że raczej nie będzie to Wimbledon, bo gra tam z reguły z obciętą głową (tak mniej więcej od 4 rundy). Szkot pokazał dwa lata temu w US Open tak kosmiczny tenis, że absolutnie nie chce mi się wierzyć, by gracz jego pokroju, który potrafi porozstawiać po kątach samego Nadala i to w taki sposób, że oczy w słup stają, nie był w stanie wygrać szlema.
Offline
Ojciec Chrzestny
Zaznaczyłem tak. Mam jednak pewne obawy, podobne do tych u Roberta. Chimerycznośc Szkota w największych imprezach tenisowych na świecie jest momentami równie zaskakująca co i przerażająca. Pamiętam AO09, gdzie w pierwszych rundach Mary deklasował rywali. Nie tyle co głądko z nimi wygrywał, co niebywale ich ośmieszał. Tak było do 4 rundy, gdzie na przeciwko stanął Verdasco. Pamiętamy co się stało.
Formy nie da się utrzymać na równie wysokim poziomie całą imprezę. Być może z tym Szkot ma problemy - z budowaniem dyspozycji na najważniejsze mecze. To udało mu się znakomicie w Toronto (szczyt przyszedł na samą końcówkę rywalizacji), nie udaje mu się w Szlemach (z dwoma małymi wyjątkami). Boris Becker kiedyś powiedział, że istota gry turniejowej polega na tym, by pokonywać przeszkody, skacząć o jeden "poziom" wyżej. Szkot chwilami jedne pokonuje latając aż pod chmury, by na kolejnych brutalnie się wykładać.
Co do samego potencjału to nic nowego nie napiszę. Federer podczas dekoracji po AO powiedział, że Andy to zbyt dobry zawodnik, by miał nigdy nie wygrać turnieju wielkoszlemowego. Nie wiem jakie był intencje Szwajcara, ale wypowiadając te słowa się nie pomylił ani trochę.
Tylko Pani Judy mogłaby być czasami mniej agresywna.
Zabrzmiało, jakbyśmy mieli co najmniej luty
![]()
![]()
Moją intecją była sugestia, że Szkotowi pozostał do rozegrania 1 turniej WS przed 24 urodzinami.
Szkot pokazał dwa lata temu w US Open tak kosmiczny tenis, że absolutnie nie chce mi się wierzyć, by gracz jego pokroju, który potrafi porozstawiać po kątach samego Nadala i to w taki sposób, że oczy w słup stają, nie był w stanie wygrać szlema.
Wtedy to naprawdę niesamowicie zagrał.
Offline
Masta
W moim przekonaniu-wątpliwe. W tym człowieku z Dunblane drzemie coś bliżej nieokreślonego, co dziwnym trafem działa najbardziej aktywnie w okresach turniejów wielkoszlemowych. Szkot ma zbyt wyraźną tendecję do odchorowywania bolesnych porażek. Ponadto, o czym mówiono głośno oraz pisano wielokrotnie, kompletnie nie radzi sobie z rolą faworyta. US Open 2008 rozegrał jako typowy underdog, jednak gdy przed samym meczem finałowym pojawiały się nieliczne opinie na temat ewentualnych szans Murray'a z przeciętnie, do tamtej pory, dysponowanym Federerem, momentalnie znalazło to odzwierciedlenie w bojaźliwej i ogólnie rzecz ujmując nędznej postawie Andrew.
Kolejna szansa pojawiła się w trakcie Australian Open, gdy dwa czynniki: stosunkowo wysoka dyspozycja Ryżego oraz słaba forma Nadala zbiegły się w meczu ćwierćfinałowym. Semi to już typowy Murray czekający na błąd,a precyzując, na śmierć z wycieńczenia Cilicia. W finale za wiele do powiedzenia nie miał ( po raz kolejny ). Następna szansa to Wimbledon, gdzie jednak po raz wtóry Andy ośmieszył się z lekka, nie ugrywając nawet seta z Nadalem.
Po rozstaniu z McLaganem rozegrał fenomenalnie zawody Rogers Cup, prezentując bardzo ofensywny styl, kompletnie niepasujący do dotychczasowego wizerunku Szkota. Niestety zacięcia do takiej gry starczyło ledwie na tydzień, bowiem w Cincy powrócił do typowego przebijactwa, co kontynuował podczas USO, gdzie przerżnął z Wawrinką.
Także, kończąc tej przydługawy wywód, brakuje mu ewidentnie jaj w tych naprawdę ważnych spotkaniach i nic nie wskazuje na to, aby miało to ulec zmianie.
Offline
User
Głosowałem na "tak".
Murray jest młody i nie chce mi się wierzyć, żeby nie wygrał nigdy turnieju WS. Raczej nie w przyszłym roku, ale w 2012 może to mu się udać.
Offline
Ojciec Chrzestny
ATP World Tour Finals: Roger Federer says first grand-slam win could open the floodgates for Andy Murray
Andy Murray’s preparations for the season-ending championships have included hitting a few volleys with David Cameron in a reception room at 10 Downing Street, while Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and the other players gathered around them in a semi-circle.
Cameron, who is a member of the parliamentary tennis club, and who recently received some rackets from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, invited Murray, dressed in a dark suit and blue tie, to have a gentle ‘hit’ during yesterday’s visit.
If Murray wins the title at the O2 Arena next week, or next summer’s Wimbledon grand slam, he could find himself being invited back to a game of swing-ball with the Prime Minister in the Downing Street garden.
“The Prime Minister was hitting some volleys with me, and he’s pretty good — he was hitting the ball so hard at me,” Murray said last night. “He likes his tennis, and he knows about the players.”
Outside of Melbourne Park, Roland Garros, the All England Club and Flushing Meadows, the ATP World Tour Finals, which start on Sunday, are the closest you will get to a slam. As practice for possibly winning a slam in 2011, Murray could do a lot worse than to win the season-ending tournament for the first time.
It was only after winning his first grand slam, at the 2003 Wimbledon Championships, that Federer looked at ease with his own talent, and the Swiss has suggested that if Murray were to win a first major next season, he could then go on to become a serial grand slam champion.
“If Murray wins a first grand slam title, that could possibly open the floodgates,” Federer said, “and he could start dominating and winning slams, but I guess you just never know until he does it.”
Still, Federer said that no two players had the same careers, and certainly no one in tennis was expecting Murray to get close to Federer’s collection of 16 grand slam trophies.
“He’s older now than I was when I won Wimbledon for the first time,” Federer said. “And you don’t want to have the same career as somebody else. Every career is different. It’s important that you believe that you can do it, and Murray clearly has the game to do it, as otherwise he wouldn’t have a winning record against me or so many titles already.”
Over the coming days in east London there will be no avoiding the great helium-balloon of psychobabble that is the debate whether Federer has a mental advantage over Murray, or vice versa. Federer’s view is that neither has an edge before they play their round-robin match in Greenwich.
“I never really thought about it from that perspective about having a psychological advantage,” said Federer, who, though he has just five wins from his 13 matches with Murray, after losing their last two meetings in Toronto and Shanghai, has twice beaten the Scot in grand slam finals.
“All I know is that I have more experience than him. He has the benefit of being younger, and he’s more, let’s say, fit or whatever you want to call it. Or dangerous. He has very strong things on his side, and I have very strong things on my side, and that’s why these days when we play each other it comes down to who has the better day,” Federer said. “I don’t feel as though necessarily he or I have an advantage over the other. I just think he’s become a really good player.”
Offline
Moderator
Australian Open - Reaction: Will Murray ever win a Grand Slam?
A round-up of all the reaction, with the legends of tennis offering words of support for Andy Murray - but the newspaper feature writers are not being as kind to the 23-year-old Scot.
Boris Becker, Daily Telegraph: "This result was not because of nerves or stage fright -- Murray was cool as a cucumber. It was simple tennis stuff: he had the wrong strategy. Tennis is a very intellectual and calculated sport. If you do A, the answer will be B and C, and how Andy plays each point is now crucial.
"Talent only gets you so far, and the simple fact is that no one is going to lose a Grand Slam for you. The winner will be the guy who dominates the middle of the court, who makes his opponent wear out his rubber soles. That is how Andy has to do it from the get-go.
"Andy is too good not to win a major. Watching his finals against Roger Federer - in the US Open in 2008, and the Australian Open last year - were interesting but not as instructive as this one against Novak Djokovic.
"Andy's and Novak's games are so similar it is a joke, yet only one of them was prepared to go out of his comfort zone to take control. Murray can learn a big lesson from this."
Tim Henman, BBC: "Andy has had a fantastic tournament but, having coming up short again, I hope the people around him can continue to support him. He's still played some great tennis and he's got to keep giving himself the opportunities as I believe he can win a Grand Slam...
"There is a stigma that goes with losing three finals, but it doesn't alter my belief that he can win a Grand Slam, and hopefully it won't alter his. There are some great champions who went on to win after losing Grand Slam finals, like Andre Agassi and Ivan Lendl, but at this moment it's hanging over his head and it will be a long flight home."
Martina Navratoliva, The Times: "I'm sure plenty of criticism will be levelled at Andy Murray, but I watched the final between him and Djokovic and came away thinking that Murray most definitely has the ability to win a Grand Slam...
"Murray should not beat himself up so much. He needs to adjust his attitude. Early in the match he was good, then it fell apart. He needs to be more forgiving of himself and play a more varied game all year, not just at Grand Slams and in finals...
"On the big points, when it mattered, he dug deep and pulled out some fantastic shots, but going forward he needs to attack more and be aggressive from the start.
"Murray has the expertise now to mix up his game and this is what he needs to work on, especially when he is facing somebody as strong as Djokovic."
Novak Djokovic: "It's a mental issue playing the final of a Grand Slam and being so close to winning a title. Every time you get there you want to win it badly but some things go wrong. You're thinking too much. You're worrying too much in your head. It's a mental battle, definitely.
"Bottom line is this is a mental sport in the end. Everyone is fit. I understand how he feels. It's his third final and he didn't get the title. It's tough.
"I really have big respect for Andy and his game because he has all it takes to become a Slam champion. I'm sure that very soon he will be. He's a very talented player and a hard worker. He's been in finals three times and just needs to make that final step."
The Times: "The great champions play better in Grand Slam finals than they do in any other matches; so far, Murray has shown that he plays worse. He sinks on the great occasion.
"Djokovic, his opponent, was superb all right, but there's more to it than Serbian excellence. Murray was a significant contributor to his own downfall. Murray at his best has the game to deal with Djokovic, and he should be able to stretch him every time. Certainly Djokovic was brilliant at times yesterday but he looked better than he was because Murray made such a sorry contrast."
Daily Record: "Where now for the Monty of tennis?... As he retreats to his plush London pad the Scot should retire to a darkened room and ponder why his undoubted tennis talent goes AWOL when it matters most....
"Why was his display so poor? Why did he look jaded after a straightforward passage through the draw? Why did he regress to the passive Murray of old after storming to the Australian Open final playing assertive, aggressive tennis? And most importantly: what does he do now?"
The Sun: "It wasn't so much a defeat as a massacre. Rage and frustration were etched all over Andy Murray's face as he once again came up not just short but miles off."
The Independent: "Someone should tell Murray the things that seemed to escape him utterly yesterday in his third and, in all the circumstances, feeblest attempt to win a Grand Slam final. Most vitally, you do not back into one of the defining moments of a potentially great career.
"You don't go on repeating the same old mistakes. You don't get lost in rambling, foul-mouthed monologues, or body language that could intensify the gloom at a funeral. You exploit the game you have been given and the one upon which you have worked slavishly hard. You don't have to charge the net, kamikaze style, and try to make every shot a drop-dead winner.
"But you do have to believe in yourself a bit - and you do have to step out fearlessly on to at least a little new terrain."
The Herald: "Everyone will have an opinion. But there is only one that matters. Andy Murray's third straight-sets defeat in a Grand Slam final will have stirred the armchair psychologists and exercised the vocal cords of those self-styled coaches whose expertise and experience is restricted to a fortnight in front of the telly at Wimbledon.
"But only the 23-year-old Scot can judge the validity of the criticism and chart the way forward.
"Murray faces a series of accusations. Has he the 'bottle' to win a Grand Slam? Has he even the talent to do so? These questions provide much heated debate between Murray's supporters and his detractors. They serve little purpose. They can only be answered by victory in a Grand Slam final."
Eurosport
Offline
MOŻE zdobędzie, ale wszystko zależy od niego samego. Pewnie okazja się nadarzy ale czy ją zacnie wykorzysta to już nie wiem.
Offline
User
Trudno powiedzieć. Z taką psychiką jaką posiada będzie mu o to trudno. Jedyna nadzieja, że kiedyś w finale trafi na gracza jeszcze bardziej rozchwianego emocjonalnie.
Offline
User
Tak. Zawodnik tej klasy będzie miał przynajmniej jeszcze kilka poważnych szans i co najmniej jedną z nich w końcu wykorzysta.
Dobrze by mu chyba zrobiło, gdyby tenisiści, którzy pokonali Murray'a w ważnym meczu WS przestali go zapewniać po pojedynkach słowami w stylu "I m sure you will win a Grand Slam title soon". Myślę, że pomimo tego, że jest to z ich strony jak najbardziej szczere, to tylko jeszcze bardziej nakręca tę chorą presję, która na nim ciąży.
Ja jednak w niego wierzę i mam nadzieję, że tego formatu tenisowy talent zdobędzie przynajmniej jeden wielkoszlemowy "skalp".
Offline
User
Ja myślę, iż jest skazany na WS, może nie w tym sezonie ale na pewno go zdobędzie i na jednym się nie skończy.
Offline
Masta
Owszem, Murray ma szansę, ale pod warunkiem że wykruszą się wszyscy stabilni tenisiści. Postawiłbym bym na niego gdyby przyszło mu zmierzyć się w finale z kimś pokroju Gasqueta lub rozregulowanego Verdasco.
Offline
User
Ciężko powiedzieć. W tym roku miał wielką szansę, ale nie udało się. Jeszcze jest Wimbledon i USO przed nim (na RG sukcesu nie wróżę). Szans go nie można całkowicie pozbawiać, w końcu od prawie 3 lat jest w pierwszej piątce rankingu, ale musi popracować nad psychiką, jeżeli ma wygrać Szlema. Bardziej skłaniam się więc do odpowiedzi "nie", ale Murray jest nieobliczalnym zawodnikiem, i może nas niejednokrotnie zaskoczyć.
Offline
Moderator
Murray needs clearer gameplan
For two years now, Murray has lacked a clear gameplan - his game isn't opportunistic enough.
The Scot is waiting too much and his level isn't steady enough from one match to another because he doesn't have a base to build and rely on. He often loses himself on the way because he doesn't know where he wants to go.
And he often gets frustrated very easily: he loses lucidity and this is what makes his level go down. During the final, he looked desperate and resigned. He never rebelled.
But this kind of tough analysis needs to be put into perspective. For now, the Brit is just missing the little extra something in order to win his first major. Let's not forget that he has already played in three Grand Slam finals, more than his British predecessors Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski.
So Andy is very close, but at the same time very far from this goal - in the sense that each time he got there he was severely beaten.
Just look at this stat: he is nine for zero in terms of sets in those Grand Slam finals. Should we talk about a problem here?
I think that he is still not mature enough to win his first one, but this flaw is hidden by the amazing talent he has. Because of this gift, he is capable of great results and a high level of performance.
But in reality he is far from having the mental strength needed to take that last step.
Some players have it naturally, like Rafael Nadal or his final opponent in Melbourne Novak Djokovic, but need help regarding technical matters.
Others however need strategy support: Andy needs a guide to deal with those big events with greater calmness and confidence and also to set his gameplan on a daily basis.
I trust in the Scot for the future: I'm convinced that his time will come and that the experience he'll take from his first Slam victory will be a springboard for getting way more under his belt.
Again, he just needs time.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/pa … icle/1277/
Rusedski: Murray needs proven coach
Beaten Australian Open finalist Andy Murray needs a proven coach in his corner if he wants to break his Grand Slam duck, according to former world number four Greg Rusedski.
Rusedski, the last British player to reach a Grand Slam final before the 23-year-old Scot, said he could do a lot worse than get on the phone to no-nonsense Australian Tony Roche as he mulls over his thrashing by Novak Djokovic on Sunday.
"That's three Grand Slam finals and he hasn't won a set yet," Rusedski told Reuters by telephone.
"Yes, he's lost twice to Roger Federer and now to Djokovic so it's no disgrace but he's got to do things better out there and maybe it's time for a few changes.
"I think someone like Tony Roche would be a great thing for Murray. He is a great guy and was a great player himself.
"He coached Ivan Lendl who was number one, he coached Pat Rafter who was number one, he coached Lleyton Hewitt who was number one and he coached Roger Federer, so that's not a bad record is it?
"Murray cannot expect to win a Grand Slam final being a counter-puncher. He has to take the bull by the horns and Roche is an aggressive sort of coach who knows all about coming forward and serve and volley.
"He's a no-nonsense sort of guy who has that experience and I think that would be beneficial for Murray having someone with him who's been there and done it."
Murray ditched his full-time coach Miles Maclagan last year and now works part-time with Spaniard Alex Corretja and uses best friend Dani Vallverdu as a hitting partner while his mother Judy also has a big input.
However, Rusedski doubts whether the current set-up can get Murray over the next hurdle.
"Maybe he needs someone a bit stronger," added Rusedski, the runner-up at the 1997 US Open to Rafter.
"His mum Judy does the video analysis and she does a good job in those things but then he's got Corretja as his coach who didn't show up (at the Australian Open).
"For me it's about having someone to get you in the right frame of mind because last year was very similar for Murray. He needs to change his mentality. He needs someone in his corner who can tell him how to handle a grand slam final.
"We are talking about the final hurdle, the guy is a great player but we are talking about that half per cent and that's all that is missing. It's very small margins."
Rusedski, who also threw the name of Swede Magnus Norman, previously working with world number four Robin Soderling, into the frame, said Murray would continue to challenge for majors but it would not get any easier.
"It becomes harder every time you miss out," he said. "This time it was not even Federer in the final, it was Djokovic who is a week younger than him and someone he's grown up with.
"Djokovic has stepped it up. Don't forget, he had just won the Davis Cup for his country which is probably the most pressure packed tennis you can ever play.
"Murray is the best British player of the Open era. You don't win six Masters Series and reach three Grand Slam finals without being a great player but you need that little bit that's going to make the difference. He doesn't want to look back at his career and think I could have, I should have, I would have."
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/02022011/58/ … coach.html
Kiedy przegrywasz, zawsze możesz liczyć na mający najlepsze pomysły i rozwiązania chór wujów dobra rada.
Offline