Andy Murray: Best moves for 2014

[Iona16]

Who is everybody? You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it true. Andy retired when playing Granollers in Rome. Only the second time he has retired from a match in his entire career. He then returned to London to see various specialists for his back. After medical advice he withdrew from the French Open. I very much doubt it was a decision he took lightly. What was the point of him traveling to Paris and competing in a tournament he wasn't fit enough to play in? He stayed in London and worked on his recovery. Playing in Paris could have jeopardised his hopes of winning Wimbledon. His mum was correct in her comments.

My point is that it was a decision that he took (meaning he could have played if he
choose to). Of course, it was a wise decision and His mum was correct in advising him
to do so. It is well known that he indeed retired in the match against Granollers and
he indeed have a back problem at that time. My contention was that it was not severe
enough for him to not play in French Open. There is an element of cost/benefit analysis
involved in his decision. Why unnecessarily play in FO (where you anyway feel your
chances are less) and hurt your back further thus jeopardizing your Wimbledon chances?

I am not criticizing Murray for missing FO'13. On the contrary, I am praising him
for a well calculated prudent decision made by knowledge of his strengths and weaknesses.

However, you are making it as though he did not really have a choice and he could
not have participated in FO 2013 even if he wanted to. I don't think any rational
person would agree with that.

But I don't even see how it matters, whether he 'could' have played, or not, if everyone agrees that he made the right decision NOT to play. I do think they have to tell the tournament and the governing body that they can't. But what athletes can and can't do, vs what they should and shouldn't do is a grey area, is it not? You say that Murray deciding to rest and rehab the back and save himself for Wimbledon was the right decision. So what does it matter if he could - technically - have shown up for RG, risked the back, had poor results, and then lost Wimbledon, because of that poor judgement? People would be skewering him. (See any number of active threads here or in the past on Nadal's scheduling, vis-a-vis his knees.)

The Murray camp made the right decision. So?

It is a question of calling a spade a spade.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Me neither. I disagreed with Andy's back problem being labelled a 'lame excuse'. I'm not sure what else we're disagreeing about.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't think Andy had serious physical issues due to which he missed FO 2013.
Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13. The real
back issue was that there was a monkey there that he needed to get out
(Wimbledon win). In fact, his Mom said Wimbledon is Andy's priority well before
Andy even bothered to announce his withdrawal from FO.

So, the upshot is that he will for sure play FO 2014 (and lose before
semifinals).

Who is everybody? You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it true. Andy retired when playing Granollers in Rome. Only the second time he has retired from a match in his entire career. He then returned to London to see various specialists for his back. After medical advice he withdrew from the French Open. I very much doubt it was a decision he took lightly. What was the point of him traveling to Paris and competing in a tournament he wasn't fit enough to play in? He stayed in London and worked on his recovery. Playing in Paris could have jeopardised his hopes of winning Wimbledon. His mum was correct in her comments.

My point is that it was a decision that he took (meaning he could have played if he choose to). Of course, it was a wise decision and His mum was correct in advising him to do so. It is well known that he indeed retired in the match against Granollers and he indeed have a back problem at that time. My contention was that it was not severe enough for him to not play in French Open. There is an element of cost/benefit analysis involved in his decision. Why unnecessarily play in FO (where you anyway feel your chances are less) and hurt your back further thus jeopardizing your Wimbledon chances?

I am not criticizing Murray for missing FO'13. On the contrary, I am praising him for a well calculated prudent decision made by knowledge of his strengths and weaknesses.

However, you are making it as though he did not really have a choice and he could not have participated in FO 2013 even if he wanted to. I don't think any rational person would agree with that.

Yes, no doubt he could have traveled to Paris and played but he was advised not to and he took that advice. I'm sure his mother had some input but the upshot is that he listened to medical advice. At no point have I said or suggested that he wasn't physically able to travel and participate in the tournament. He obviously decided it wasn't worth the risk. No player wants to miss a slam and as I said I doubt it was a decision he took lightly. Skipping the French Open didn't come with a guarantee that he would win Wimbledon. You said, "Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13.". That is what I disagreed with.

Well, as long as you are admitting the bolded statement you made, we don't really have
a disagreement.

Also, for emphasis let me mention explicitly that I am not advocating that anybody
who could play in a tournament should play. It is the player's personal decision
and Austrian Philosopher Sartre says that ``Human Beings are Condemned to be Free".

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Who is everybody? You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it true. Andy retired when playing Granollers in Rome. Only the second time he has retired from a match in his entire career. He then returned to London to see various specialists for his back. After medical advice he withdrew from the French Open. I very much doubt it was a decision he took lightly. What was the point of him traveling to Paris and competing in a tournament he wasn't fit enough to play in? He stayed in London and worked on his recovery. Playing in Paris could have jeopardised his hopes of winning Wimbledon. His mum was correct in her comments.

My point is that it was a decision that he took (meaning he could have played if he
choose to). Of course, it was a wise decision and His mum was correct in advising him
to do so. It is well known that he indeed retired in the match against Granollers and
he indeed have a back problem at that time. My contention was that it was not severe
enough for him to not play in French Open. There is an element of cost/benefit analysis
involved in his decision. Why unnecessarily play in FO (where you anyway feel your
chances are less) and hurt your back further thus jeopardizing your Wimbledon chances?

I am not criticizing Murray for missing FO'13. On the contrary, I am praising him
for a well calculated prudent decision made by knowledge of his strengths and weaknesses.

However, you are making it as though he did not really have a choice and he could
not have participated in FO 2013 even if he wanted to. I don't think any rational
person would agree with that.

But I don't even see how it matters, whether he 'could' have played, or not, if everyone agrees that he made the right decision NOT to play. I do think they have to tell the tournament and the governing body that they can't. But what athletes can and can't do, vs what they should and shouldn't do is a grey area, is it not? You say that Murray deciding to rest and rehab the back and save himself for Wimbledon was the right decision. So what does it matter if he could - technically - have shown up for RG, risked the back, had poor results, and then lost Wimbledon, because of that poor judgement? People would be skewering him. (See any number of active threads here or in the past on Nadal's scheduling, vis-a-vis his knees.)

The Murray camp made the right decision. So?

It is a question of calling a spade a spade.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade

 

[Iona16]

I don't think Andy had serious physical issues due to which he missed FO 2013.
Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13. The real
back issue was that there was a monkey there that he needed to get out
(Wimbledon win). In fact, his Mom said Wimbledon is Andy's priority well before
Andy even bothered to announce his withdrawal from FO.

So, the upshot is that he will for sure play FO 2014 (and lose before
semifinals).

Who is everybody? You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it true. Andy retired when playing Granollers in Rome. Only the second time he has retired from a match in his entire career. He then returned to London to see various specialists for his back. After medical advice he withdrew from the French Open. I very much doubt it was a decision he took lightly. What was the point of him traveling to Paris and competing in a tournament he wasn't fit enough to play in? He stayed in London and worked on his recovery. Playing in Paris could have jeopardised his hopes of winning Wimbledon. His mum was correct in her comments.

My point is that it was a decision that he took (meaning he could have played if he choose to). Of course, it was a wise decision and His mum was correct in advising him to do so. It is well known that he indeed retired in the match against Granollers and he indeed have a back problem at that time. My contention was that it was not severe enough for him to not play in French Open. There is an element of cost/benefit analysis involved in his decision. Why unnecessarily play in FO (where you anyway feel your chances are less) and hurt your back further thus jeopardizing your Wimbledon chances?

I am not criticizing Murray for missing FO'13. On the contrary, I am praising him for a well calculated prudent decision made by knowledge of his strengths and weaknesses.

However, you are making it as though he did not really have a choice and he could not have participated in FO 2013 even if he wanted to. I don't think any rational person would agree with that.

Yes, no doubt he could have traveled to Paris and played but he was advised not to and he took that advice. I'm sure his mother had some input but the upshot is that he listened to medical advice. At no point have I said or suggested that he wasn't physically able to travel and participate in the tournament. He obviously decided it wasn't worth the risk. No player wants to miss a slam and as I said I doubt it was a decision he took lightly. Skipping the French Open didn't come with a guarantee that he would win Wimbledon. You said, "Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13.". That is what I disagreed with.

Well, as long as you are admitting the bolded statement you made, we don't really have
a disagreement.

Also, for emphasis let me mention explicitly that I am not advocating that anybody
who could play in a tournament should play. It is the player's personal decision
and Austrian Philosopher Sartre says that ``Human Beings are Condemned to be Free".

If I typed it I meant it.

 

[Moxie]

^ GSM: I think we're basically all agreeing on the same things. (And nice Sartre quote, btw, though I think Isabelle will take you to task for calling him Austrian.)