2014 Wimbledon Quarterfinals: Murray vs. Dimitrov
- Thread starter rafanoy1992
- Start date
TennisFanatic7
Major Winner
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,359
- Reactions
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 31
- Location
- London
- Website
- tennisfanaticblog.weebly.com
The trend was set with this generation of British tennis fans with Henman. He reached 4 semi finals at Wimbledon and lost them all. Murray also lost the semi final stage three years running before reaching and subsequently losing his first Wimbledon final. Casual Brits that only tune in to Wimbledon almost seem to have an expectation of Murray getting close but not quite winning and when that happens it gives them a chance to sound like experts and say "typical Murray, just like Henman" or something along those lines when in reality 95% of them have very limited tennis knowledge other than what happened at Wimbledon in the last few years.
It isn't just Murray that has to put up with it though, it seems to have become the culture over here, us Brits love a good moan and although we do support our teams and our individuals just as fervently as anyone else, when they fail it's almost like a silver lining because it gives us a chance to heave a sigh of "typical" and feel sorry for ourselves. It's the exact same with the England football team, who I'd say are the only ones that get it to the same level as Andy, but there's other examples, such as Jenson Button in F1, who had a similar grind of many years as the nearly man before winning his first Grand Prix and later, first world championship.
I can't honestly speak for the other nations as I obviously wasn't brought up there and don't live there, but it does seem that their love for their tennis players is more unconditional. From what I've seen there's nothing like the doom and gloom in Spain or Switzerland when Rafa or Roger suffer a high profile loss, they'll concentrate on what a great and humble champion their man is instead and how gracious they were in defeat, or something.
Iona is a passionate and devoted fan of Murray, as am I, though I express it in a different way, but very few tennis fans in the UK are anything like similar. Perhaps it is just the case that when it comes to tennis, Brits of our generation are conditioned to detach themselves from our players after the disappointments of Tim and pre-2012 Olympics Andy, throw Rusedski in there too if you want to count him.
It isn't just Murray that has to put up with it though, it seems to have become the culture over here, us Brits love a good moan and although we do support our teams and our individuals just as fervently as anyone else, when they fail it's almost like a silver lining because it gives us a chance to heave a sigh of "typical" and feel sorry for ourselves. It's the exact same with the England football team, who I'd say are the only ones that get it to the same level as Andy, but there's other examples, such as Jenson Button in F1, who had a similar grind of many years as the nearly man before winning his first Grand Prix and later, first world championship.
I can't honestly speak for the other nations as I obviously wasn't brought up there and don't live there, but it does seem that their love for their tennis players is more unconditional. From what I've seen there's nothing like the doom and gloom in Spain or Switzerland when Rafa or Roger suffer a high profile loss, they'll concentrate on what a great and humble champion their man is instead and how gracious they were in defeat, or something.
Iona is a passionate and devoted fan of Murray, as am I, though I express it in a different way, but very few tennis fans in the UK are anything like similar. Perhaps it is just the case that when it comes to tennis, Brits of our generation are conditioned to detach themselves from our players after the disappointments of Tim and pre-2012 Olympics Andy, throw Rusedski in there too if you want to count him.
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,039
- Reactions
- 7,329
- Points
- 113
Moxie629 said:
Gloria Connors was Irish and Judy is a Celt - we expect tough mammas. As for Baboushka in charge of the Safins!
It's not sexist to use the terms I used to interpret Ginny, and it's ridiculous the way the press jumped on her. There kinda became a gender issue in this, which is wrong, because most people who were confused - or thought it was a joke, as Virginia and Fred Stolle did - thought so based on what they knew of Mauresmo. I think they're right. It's not about her being a woman - though if she sold herself on the basis of playing in the WTA, then that would be a bit far-fetched - but the fact is, Lendl brought a certain authority, discipline and credibility to the role. He'd been there, and done that. He could point to his playing career and say, this is what it is.
Plus, their humour was simpatico, apparently, and he was just the perfect fit for Andy from all angles. I think Amelie is a nice person - pretty jawline
- but I also think she's out of her depth.And bear in mind that I said the same about McEnroe and other men whose names were bandied about beforehand....
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,039
- Reactions
- 7,329
- Points
- 113
nehmeth
Grand Slam Champion
Kieran said:
:laydownlaughing :clap :lolz:
Wow... poor Becker.
This was one of my favorites:
"There he stood, big Boris, the former World Number 1, the current coach of top seed Novak Djokovic, the youngest (dishiest!) chap ever to take the men’s singles titles in Wimbledon back in 1985, six time Grand Slam singles champion, looking for all the world like – Henry VIII."
"Worse; Henry VIII played by Keith Michell back in the 70s as a corpulent, dissipated monarch past his prime."
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,039
- Reactions
- 7,329
- Points
- 113
:laydownlaughing :lolz:
I know, po' Bo!
And of course, why shouldn't she write this, if it's what she's thinking? Let her speak her mind, it's not harming anyone. Heaven forfend if a male wrote the same about Chrissy, though...
I know, po' Bo!
And of course, why shouldn't she write this, if it's what she's thinking? Let her speak her mind, it's not harming anyone. Heaven forfend if a male wrote the same about Chrissy, though...
Moxie629 said:
Agreed Moxie (and not just because I generally find Jos. A Bank shirts to be dull and often awkwardly fitting) - but that is my point. If we are willing to agree that female fashion more powerfully and overtly exudes "sexiness" than does male fashion (at least in general), then why do you have to jump all over Kieran and nehmeth for suggesting that a male coach such as Lendl is far more likely to be a sterner, more intimidating, more demanding influence on Murray than a female coach such as Mauresmo?
Riotbeard said:
Can they put you in your place in an athletic context, or in an office or in a family setting?
There is a big difference.
I also recommend that you go back through the thread to witness Moxie's apoplexy at the suggestion of Kieran and nehmeth that Murray fading meekly in the quarterfinal had something to do with having Mauresmo in the coaching box instead of Lendl.
If Moxie wants to say that a Victoria's Secret fashion show is much sexier than a Jos. A Banks show, I agree with her, and I don't consider her sexist against men for saying it. At the same time, if Kieran and nehmeth want to say that a stern, fiercely competitive male influence such as Lendl is a better coach for Murray than compassionate Mauresmo, I also agree with them, and I don't consider them sexist against women for saying it.
Consistency, my friend. Consistency.
Riotbeard
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,810
- Reactions
- 12
- Points
- 38
calitennis127 said:
Saying that Lendl (the coach he was most successful with) would have been better than a coach Andy hired a week before the tournament started is hardly a good case. Not going back all the way through the thread, but if nehmeth and Kieran feel Andy didn't do well because he had a female coach in his box, I have no problem with disagreeing with them and saying their argument is problematic...
Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,701
- Reactions
- 14,878
- Points
- 113
calitennis127 said:
Except that your consistency does fall apart. When you consider Lendl to be "stern, and fiercely competitive," and Mauresmo only gets credit for being "compassionate," you are still giving him the high hand in terms of the gender-card. You played that hand pretty well, but gave a "tell" at the end.
Riotbeard
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,810
- Reactions
- 12
- Points
- 38
Billie said:Some things never change around here :lolz:
Riot, I seriously doubt that any lady needs to put you in your place, you are such a southern gentleman.
Well thank you Billie.
The point though Cali, is your test for 1 woman versus one man is problematic lendl took quite some time to get murray a slam, so a. it's too early. b. plenty of male coaches didn't take murray to a slam, so you are creating a gender narrative without clear evidence that it exists, even if Mourismo had been there for years. c. arguing that one woman is too nurtering when coaching tennis wouldn't prove that all women are too nurturing, so if you turned out to be right about mourismo, you wouldn't have proven that all women would be bad coaches.
A better test would be in the women's game, where there have been male and female coaches for years, even though that is weighted toward male coaches.
britbox
Multiple Major Winner
GameSetAndMath
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 21,141
- Reactions
- 3,398
- Points
- 113
britbox
Multiple Major Winner
Riotbeard said:
Well, that was the discussion.
I did not initiate it, nor did I really participate in it. I don't know enough about Lendl or Mauresmo to really judge how they would influence Murray, but I did take issue with Moxie taking such offense to Kieran's and nehmeth's suggestion.
Moxie629 said:calitennis127 said:
Except that your consistency does fall apart. When you consider Lendl to be "stern, and fiercely competitive," and Mauresmo only gets credit for being "compassionate," you are still giving him the high hand in terms of the gender-card. You played that hand pretty well, but gave a "tell" at the end.
Sure, I am giving Lendl the "high hand in terms of the gender-card", because the probability is that he does inspire more fear in Murray than Mauresmo, based largely (but not entirely) on gender.
In general, it is more likely that if someone is going to physically assault you, the individual in question will be a male. Both biology and criminology will tell you this. However, that does not mean that there aren't some women (such as Serena Williams, for instance) who couldn't put a whooping on many biological males in the world.
There are always exceptions or peculiarities, but there are also generalities, and they are numerous when it comes to sex/gender.
Riot, you can be very logical at times, but at others you reveal yourself to be someone who is brainwashed in some of the silliest and most trivial dogmas. I saw this when we argued about one other wonderfully pleasant topic, but I won't even mention that topic because it doesn't deserve to be mentioned.
Logical point. Yet trivial in this context.
We could just as firmly argue that Murray was never straight-setted at Wimbledon (losing two sets by a wonderful score of 6-1 and 6-2) by a non-Big 4 opponent while being coached by a male, if you want to go down that road.
Again - entirely logical in the most narrow way imaginable, but trivial to the point of abject stupidity. No one said that every woman in the world is a bad coach, but there is a reason why, for millennia, men and women across a wide variety of cultures have intuitively gone along with the idea of men going to battle or being the primary participants in athletic contests or, to be more specific, coaching/leading male groups in combat or competition. It is such an obvious and natural route to go most of the time that no one even thinks twice about it.
Speaking in generalities makes sense, and finding 1% worth of exceptions doesn't invalidate the general rule. Men in general are stronger, more violent, and more brutally competitive. Women in general are gentler, more extroverted, and more emotional. Are these generalities 100% valid all of the time? No. But the scientific data on gender differences is so immense and easily accessible that to deny gender differences one has to be an irrational fool. The fact that Hillary Clinton has spent the last 20 years of her life trying to act like a man doesn't change these empirical and objective realities.
When Kieran and nehmeth take a guess that Lendl is more of an intimidating and hardening force for Murray's mindset, they are taking odds as strong as the odds that one of the Big 4/Big 3 will win a Grand Slam. They may just turn out to be wrong once or twice, but most of the time you will find that, lo and behold, they are right.
I think that is completely silly, because how male and female coaches relate to a female player is going to be far different, most of the time, than how a coach has to relate to a male player. Very different dynamics at work.
I don't think too many women would take very kindly to the language and attitude at, say, an NFL practice if - with those equally strong bodies to men they possess - our sexist, bigoted society just let poor women put the pads on and play football instead of making them aspire to be models.
Riotbeard said:
Logical point. Yet trivial in this context.
Riotbeard said:
We could just as firmly argue that Murray was never straight-setted at Wimbledon (losing two sets by a wonderful score of 6-1 and 6-2) by a non-Big 4 opponent while being coached by a male, if you want to go down that road.
Riotbeard said:
Again - entirely logical in the most narrow way imaginable, but trivial to the point of abject stupidity. No one said that every woman in the world is a bad coach, but there is a reason why, for millennia, men and women across a wide variety of cultures have intuitively gone along with the idea of men going to battle or being the primary participants in athletic contests or, to be more specific, coaching/leading male groups in combat or competition. It is such an obvious and natural route to go most of the time that no one even thinks twice about it.
Speaking in generalities makes sense, and finding 1% worth of exceptions doesn't invalidate the general rule. Men in general are stronger, more violent, and more brutally competitive. Women in general are gentler, more extroverted, and more emotional. Are these generalities 100% valid all of the time? No. But the scientific data on gender differences is so immense and easily accessible that to deny gender differences one has to be an irrational fool. The fact that Hillary Clinton has spent the last 20 years of her life trying to act like a man doesn't change these empirical and objective realities.
When Kieran and nehmeth take a guess that Lendl is more of an intimidating and hardening force for Murray's mindset, they are taking odds as strong as the odds that one of the Big 4/Big 3 will win a Grand Slam. They may just turn out to be wrong once or twice, but most of the time you will find that, lo and behold, they are right.
Riotbeard said:
I think that is completely silly, because how male and female coaches relate to a female player is going to be far different, most of the time, than how a coach has to relate to a male player. Very different dynamics at work.
I don't think too many women would take very kindly to the language and attitude at, say, an NFL practice if - with those equally strong bodies to men they possess - our sexist, bigoted society just let poor women put the pads on and play football instead of making them aspire to be models.
