Home Login Register
MurraysWorld  >  Columns  >  Three kings and a prince
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Reply

Three kings and a prince
Emma Jean
Quote
For Federer against Andy, it's almost always personal. Same with Nole. He's afraid of Nadal. Still mad at Del Potro for making him lose a Grand Slam so he makes it personal against him too.
IP Logged
Aileen
Quote
Quote from: teejay1 on July 18, 2012, 12:10 pm
Hi All,

I haven't mentioned it here because it isn't relevant, but I'm a big Cliff fan, and no, I'm not being funny or taking the wee-wee. I had the pleasure of meeting him last year. Great bloke, kind, thoughtful and made time for me. I should have got him talking about the tennis. Ah well, next time!

Cliff's impromptu performance in 1996 (yes, that long ago, honest) came about because he was asked to do something during the rain break by the Chief Exec at the AELTC at the time, Chris Gorringe. It was actually Chris's wife's idea. Originally the idea was that Cliff would give an interview, but then he found himself being asked to sing, which he did, somewhat reluctantly because he had no guitar, no backing band, etc, but he did it and entertained the crowds. He did, however, make it abundantly clear he would never do it again under any circumstances, a fact our beloved media morons choose to ignore, choosing to think instead that Cliff goes to Wimbledon with one eye on the tennis and another on the skies, just in case a 'chance' comes up. It's ridiculous, and not a little offensive, rather like Andrew 'I'm full of myself' Castle. The performance at Wimbledon was not pre-arranged. Cliff would never pre-arrange an unaccompanied performance in the open air with no rehearsal. He is a pro performer.

It's funny really, one of the reasons I like Andy Murray so much is that he reminds me of Cliff in a lot of ways. They are both great at what they do, both very hard working and committed. They both strive to be the best they can be. They are both also decent and care a great deal about other people.

Going back over Wimbledon, it's funny to look back over some of the early thoughts here. Personally I never thought Andy going out at Queen's was relevant to his Wimbledon chances. I think it was just one of those things, and may well have been a good thing in retrospect.

It's interesting to see Raonic mentioned. I don't know, and I know he got a win over Andy earlier this year (didn't Andy have a bye, play a second round and then get a walkover before facing Raonic?), but I just think he's a bit over-rated. We'll see I suppose, but I've yet to see much about him that gives me any reason to think he is going to be as great as some say. I know it isn't PC to say it, but I do think the man could do with losing a bit of weight. He is tall, I'll give him that, but he's also just a bit chunky.

Going back over the final, I just wonder whether Andy rushed just a bit at the end of the second set. The rain was obviously coming, and Andy did seem to lose just a little bit of concentration. I suppose  we'll never know, and ifs and buts don't really help I suppose, but had Andy got the second I think he would have been able to push on from there with more confidence, even under the dratted (knew the thing was a waste of money!) roof. The crowd would have been in it for sure in that scenario. They just went quiet in the third and fourth sets when I think Andy could have done with a bit of a lift.

The other thing that strikes me really is the way Federer played. I can't explain it really, but there was almost something about him that suggested he wanted Andy's blood. I honestly can't remember him really going at an opponent like that for ages. I might be paranoid, I just don't like the man, but there was a feel to me of it being almost personal for Federer.

I'm sure the final threw up some things Andy can work on, converting break points, the second serve - although that had been great until the final, dealing with it under pressure is the thing I suppose - and getting the first serve in more (I do still wonder about the serve in terms of his back), but I do think on balance he played well. He looked far more comfortable in his own skin this time, and I really do think he coped brilliantly with all the talk (I won't say hype because I do believe he had a chance) going in to the final.

I did wonder over what might have happened if Bennetteau had taken Federer out. Shame he got cramp at the wrong time. Do we know for sure Djokovic was ill? It's funny, at the beginning of the tournament I fancied Andy's chances against Nadal this year in the semi's. Then I fancied his chances against Federer in the final, and the general consensus amongst the commentators seemed to be that Andy would stand a better chance against Federer than Djokovic, but I don't know so much now. Andy got close to Djokovic once or twice last year when Djokovic was playing as well as he was. It was close in Australia this year too, and Andy had a good win over him in Dubai this year too. Makes you wonder.

Still, I still think Andy has a great chance at the USO if he can be as focused as he was for the vast majority of Wimbledon. The media over here won't be on his back in the way they are during Wimbledon. I still remain convinced that the best is yet to come from Andy, and wouldn't it be great if it turned out right for him at the USO. The four of them getting a major each would be a great story.
Excellent posting teejay.

Well I too would have preferred an Andy/Djokovic final.  That doesn't mean to say I think Andy would have won, although strangely I had the feeling his chances were slightly better, maybe because Djokovic seems to be struggling a bit lately, but it would have been a great contest between two players who are good friends, and therefore a lot more pleasant to watch.  I swear Fed was openly gloating by the end.

And, yes, Raonic could do with shedding some weight, although he does seem to be remarkably quick round the court for someone of his build.  Monte Carlo was very unfortunate for Andy.  Had they played in Miami as scheduled I think Andy, playing on his best surface, would have edged it.  I do think Raonic is a little over-rated.  Take away his bullet serve and he's much more vulnerable.

I've got a lot of admiration for Cliff too, for the same reasons you have.  And I've just gone a trip down memory lane with these YouTube videos of Cliff's 1996 performance - and what a performance it was from a truly great showman.  His impersonation of Elvis singing "All Shook Up" is brilliant and I love the way he kissed his impromptu backing group of female tennis players at the end!
[ Last edit by Aileen July 19, 2012, 02:43 am ] IP Logged
teejay1
Quote
Hi Aileen and all,

I love watching Andy play Djokovic. I think I get a kick out of seeing how similar their games are!

You know, it strikes me as funny, in Dubai the commentators didn't seem to think Andy would get past Djokovic. I was over the moon (and probably a little smug!) when he did.

I suppose no final is ever going to be friendly as such, they both want it after all, but I honestly felt at times like Smugfed was trying to show Andy up. I wondered whether he was trying to get Andy to lose his temper. From that point of view he failed. Oh, I think Smugfed was gloating as soon as the stupid roof closed. With Djokovic and Andy there is mutual respect, and that, coupled with the similarities in their games, would have made for a fascinating encounter. Still, there is still time!

I must say that it defeats me why the roof was ever made an issue in the final. I realise it helped Federer, that isn't what I mean, but what I don't understand is why the final wasn't put on earlier. They knew rain was likely, and I know the roof is there for that purpose, but for goodness sake, it was the final of a major. If they try to play matches in the open air as much as possible, insisting that it is an open air tournament, wouldn't it have made sense to move the final to earlier and play it in the open? I also think it would have levelled the playing field a little if they'd done that. The problem, as I see it, is that the policy about when to use the roof, or when not to, is all over the place. I also think the timing of matches at Wimbledon comes down to whether the strawberries and cream and Pimm's set are there, not to mention TV ratings.
IP Logged
Aileen
Quote
I agree.  Play should either have been brought forward or the roof closed from the start.  It seems the officials learnt nothing from the shambles they created in 2001 when again the forecast was ignored - something which I am convinced cost Henman getting to the final, and maybe even winning the tournament (although I do have my doubts)  All the momentum was with him when rain stopped play.  Also if the roof had been closed for the entire match I don't think Andy would have been so disadvantaged.  That break coming right on top of losing the 2nd set did him no favours.

Wimbledon scheduling is ridiculous.  No other tournament starts its matches so late.  Stuff the strawberry and pimms brigade - players and true tennis fans come first!
IP Logged
teejay1
Quote
Hi Aileen and all,

I agree completely.

I suppose neutrals and Federer fans would argue that it was only a set all when the break came. Andy could have come back and still won, but I do think it made a difference psychologically. Federer went in to the break having snatched the second set from Andy really, I can't think of another way to put it, and the momentum was with him. Andy went in to the break knowing he had lost a set he probably could have won, and I think the break gave him time to (maybe) dwell on that. Add in the fact that Andy isn't stupid, he would know the conditions under the roof would have suited Federer, and it seems obvious to me that it was about to become a real test. Had the final started earlier it would have been more equal really, because it would have come down to the tennis, rather than the external factors, like the roof, until late on, when endurance would have still been relevant, especially if it had gone five sets, which I thought beforehand it might.

I'm afraid I really don't understand some of the decisions the powers that be make, especially in the majors, and particularly at Wimbledon. To my mind all decisions should be based around what is best for the players and the game. At the moment the decisions seem to be based on TV coverage and whether or not the Pimm's brigade have finished their lunch. Someone just seems to have their priorities all wrong.
IP Logged
Aileen
Quote
^ To my mind it's ridiculous that a Slam final should have been affected in this way.  Rain breaks are one thing, but to expect the players to have to suddenly adapt to different court conditions during the match is unacceptable.  It doesn't matter that they're both in the same boat - it simply should not happen at this high professional level. 

I'm hoping Andy gets fairer treatment in Canada and the US this year.  In the past his matches have frequently been scheduled for the hottest part of the day whilst Fed & Co (particularly Fed) got the cooler evening ones, presumably to suit TV audiences since they were seen to be the bigger draws.  Well these same audiences will have been watching the Wimbledon final, so will Andy still be seen as not being a crowd pleaser??
IP Logged
Robertrib
Quote
I have been surfing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It's pretty worth enough for me. In my view, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the net will be much more useful than ever before.
IP Logged
ProdigyEng
Quote
ok
IP Logged
Connor
Quote
lol
IP Logged
Ruthie
Quote
Quote from: Robertrib on February 09, 2014, 12:01 am
I have been surfing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It's pretty worth enough for me. In my view, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the net will be much more useful than ever before.
why don't you come and join us then robertrib?
IP Logged
drchef
Quote
Because it's spam.
IP Logged
Ruthie
Quote
Quote from: drchef on February 09, 2014, 01:57 pm
Because it's spam.
what makes you say that?  It's a positive post by someone whom I assume doesn't speak English as a first language
IP Logged
tamila
Quote
 
Quote from: Aileen on July 19, 2012, 06:25 pm
I agree.  Play should either have been brought forward or the roof closed from the start.  It seems the officials learnt nothing from the shambles they created in 2001 when again the forecast was ignored - something which I am convinced cost Henman getting to the final, and maybe even winning the tournament (although I do have my doubts)  All the momentum was with him when rain stopped play.  Also if the roof had been closed for the entire match I don't think Andy would have been so disadvantaged.  That break coming right on top of losing the 2nd set did him no favours.

Wimbledon scheduling is ridiculous.  No other tournament starts its matches so late.  Stuff the strawberry and pimms brigade - players and true tennis fans come first!

There was also the incident in the SF last year with Janowitz moaning about the roof.  It would have been finished before it became dark.  I could quite understand why Andy was angry considering Jerzy had been complaining for some time to the umpire while it was still light.  perhaps he thought it would have the same effect on Andy as it did in the final against Federer. It did the opposite, of course.
IP Logged
Philip
Quote
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/jul/10/andy-murray-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-rafael-nadal

Finally, the prince becomes the 4th King in a glittering era of excellence.
[ Last edit by Philip July 18, 2016, 02:25 pm ] IP Logged
Aileen
Quote
Quote from: Philip on July 18, 2016, 07:25 am
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/jul/10/andy-murray-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-rafael-nadal

Finally, the prince becomes the 4th King in a glittering era of excellence.
Well deserved recognition at last.  Thanks Philip.
IP Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Reply 
MurraysWorld  >  Columns  >  Three kings and a prince