Andy Murray Fans Thread

[GameSetAndMath]

Nadal probably too. Hope the day that he decides to retire will be because he doesn´t want to play anymore or because his age but not because an injury

…….or because he realizes that there is no chance that he can overtake Roger's GS record.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I can only count two fans of AM on TF. One is Iona (she actually had a crush on him) and the other is Sid (I think it is mostly due to being from same country). Looks like neither of them are around these days.

 

[Moxie]

I can only count two fans of AM on TF. One is Iona (she actually had a crush on him) and the other is Sid (I think it is mostly due to being from same country). Looks like neither of them are around these days.

Isabelle is a fan of Murray and I have always been one, and on record. Your point?

 

[Carol]

Isabelle is a fan of Murray and I have always been one, and on record. Your point?

And me too after Nadal but we know that around here the Federer’s fans are the most.....:sleep:

 

[Moxie]

I can only count two fans of AM on TF. One is Iona (she actually had a crush on him) and the other is Sid (I think it is mostly due to being from same country). Looks like neither of them are around these days.

Iona is no longer here but she didn't have a crush on Andy. She was a Scot and knew of the work that he did behind the scenes for kids. She loved him for that, because that was the work that she did.

 

[Horsa]

What is "hyggestak" if not a typo? Google translate suggests it be Danish (not German) word, with meaning that does not make sense in your context.
Understanding when to stand firm and loud in social spotlight and when to remain silent is a tricky art, certainly too much silence is not desirable, we should try to live in balance with our internal desires. But one is certain: bullies should not be tolerated and the society should take action to eradicate them if other interim means fail. That's why I stood up to condemn Ricardo's post in strongest (yet still polite) way. The ultimate step might be to report him to an admin if he keeps pedalling his disruptive agenda. But I hope we won't need that step.

According to the book I'm reading it means to chit-chat about non-controversial topics. It is a Danish word. Google translate is wrong lots of times & comes up with definitions that don't make sense.

I know. I agree.

 

[Horsa]

In every all-time rankings I've ever done, I've always ranked Wilander higher than Andy. Ricardo, as is often the case, simply doesn't read the nuance of what I actually said, instead resorting to his usual immature ad hominem attacks. Here is the first part of my actual quote:

Historically speaking, I think Andy will come to be seen as at the head of the pack that includes Courier, Kuerten, and Ashe; I think he was greater than all three. There's an argument that could be made that he's as good or greater than Wilander, but people will never look past the big Slam title gap, even though Andy was greater in just about every other way.

"There's an argument that could be made..." isn't the same thing as saying Murray is better than Wilander. It is saying that, well, there's an argument that could be made that he's as good or better; it is saying "It is worth considering," not "It is." I question whether black-and-white thinkers like Ricardo understand the difference.

Here's the next part of the quote:

Andy's true level can perhaps best be summarized by his rankings in terms of Slam finals: only eight players (Roger, Rafa, Novak, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Lendl, Borg) were in more Slam finals, and he's tied with McEnroe, Wilander and Edberg with 11, and just ahead of Becker's 10. That's some good company.

Wilander was 7-4 in Slam finals; Andy was 3-8. The entire argument for Wilander > Murray is because Wilander won four more matches than Andy. But let's look a bit deeper than that.

Wilander's Slam final wins: Lendl x3, Vilas, Curren, Cash, Leconte. In other words, he beat one all-time great three times, one lesser great once (although when he was past his prime), and three second tier types.

Murray's eight losses: Federer x3, Djokovic x5. In other words, he lost to two of the three greatest players of the Open Era a bunch of times - players of a caliber that Wilander never had to face. Andy never lost a Slam final to the likes of Cash, Curren, or Leconte. Lendl was great, but he wasn't Federer/Djokovic.

How about some other numbers (gasp, evil numbers! Fake facts!):

Overall W-L in ATP finals: Andy 45-22 (67%), Wilander 33-26 (56%). Edge Andy.
Overall W-L in ATP matches: Andy 663-190 (78%), Wilander 571-222 (72%). Edge Andy.
Weeks at #1: Andy 41, Wilander 20. Edge Andy.
Big Titles: Andy 29, Wilander 15. Edge Andy.
Years in top 10: Andy 9, Wilander 7. Edge Andy.
Years in top 5: Andy 8, Wilander 6. Edge Andy.
Years #1: Andy 1, Wilander 1. Tied.

As I said, in just about every way other than Slam wins, Andy had a better record. Yes, Wilander's 1988 was probably better than Andy's best year, 2016, but it isn't a huge gap. Mats won three Slams, but he won only two other big titles, two Masters, and six titles overall; plus he went out of the tour finals in the round robin phase, finishing the year 53-11 (83%). Andy only won a single Slam (although he reached the finals of two others, losing to peak Novak), but he won Olympic Gold, three Master, the ATP final, and 9 titles overall, reaching 13 finals overall (more than twice Mats in 1988) for a 78-9 (90%) record.

So yeah, there's an argument that could be made that Andy was an equal or greater player to Wilander. What Chris pointed out quite accurately is that Ricardo dislikes anything objective--like stats--that disagree with him. He doesn't engage in dialogue, but instead attacks people when they present viewpoints that disagree with him. What's the point of that, really?

Excuse me, please. I sometimes indulge in dichotomous thinking but most of the time I realise that although there are times when there is only 1 right answer & all the other answers are wrong there are a lot more times when there are a lot of right & a lot of wrong answers & it's just a matter of opinion which everyone is entitled to have & air as long as they air them in a proper manner without disrespecting other people's right to do the same & bringing things back to relevance I know the difference.

No one likes being proved wrong. I don't either. My response though is normally to think about what has been said, weigh things up & consider them for a while, exercise my right to change my mind if necessary, explain myself & try to find an answer & apologise. I always try to respect everyone's right to be treated with respect as an equal, intelligent & capable human being. I think that Ricardo just enjoys intimidating people & there's no need for it. I don't like bullying or bullies & I'm very sorry that you're a victim of it. It's not nice & you don't deserve it.

 

[Horsa]

I can only count two fans of AM on TF. One is Iona (she actually had a crush on him) and the other is Sid (I think it is mostly due to being from same country). Looks like neither of them are around these days.

I was an Andy Murray fan too.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

…….or because he realizes that there is no chance that he can overtake Roger's GS record.

Well the only reason why Federer is still playing and not even being there for his kids with all his travel is because his record is not safe, so hopefully for you Nadal won't force Federer to play until he is 60 yrs old so you don't watch him embarrass himself.

 

[Front242]

Well the only reason why Federer is still playing and not even being there for his kids with all his travel is because his record is not safe, so hopefully for you Nadal won't force Federer to play until he is 60 yrs old so you don't watch him embarrass himself.

Give me 60 year old Federer over 55 year old Nadal any day.

 

[DarthFed]

Well the only reason why Federer is still playing and not even being there for his kids with all his travel is because his record is not safe, so hopefully for you Nadal won't force Federer to play until he is 60 yrs old so you don't watch him embarrass himself.

The funny thing is you are trying to troll but you are right. I've thought for many years now Roger would be gone if Nadal and even Djokovic wasn't a big threat to his legacy. His rich as hell kids will have to wait a little longer for daddy to be home all the time.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Give me 60 year old Federer over 55 year old Nadal any day.

In my scenario Nadal would have already retired at 35 yrs old with the record but Federer would still be playing until 60 yrs old trying to get it back.

 

[Front242]

In my scenario Nadal would have already retired at 35 yrs old with the record but Federer would still be playing until 60 yrs old trying to get it back.

It's ok to live in your own little world. We all get it at this stage.

 

[mrzz]

reporter's misogynistic attitude

Isn't a bit too much to qualify the reporter as a misogynist just because he focused on male players? Yes, he used only the word "player", but "male" was understood in context -- that is, an ellipsis figure of speech. A popular definition of misogyny is "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls". The guy simply focused on male players, while interviewing a male player playing the male tournament. That's context enough. Maybe the guy simply does not pay attention to women's tennis. I completely ignore women tennis and I am definitely not a misogynist.

 

[mrzz]

Wilander was 7-4 in Slam finals; Andy was 3-8. The entire argument for Wilander > Murray is because Wilander won four more matches than Andy.

The post from where this phrase comes from has a lot of interesting points and I agree with most of them. However, the way this phrase is written it sounds like it is "just" four matches (yes, you did not write "just"). Well, those four matches are exactly what it counts. This is what tennis is all about, to perform when the stakes are high. So those four matches should make a lot of difference.

The argument about the opposition is a good one, but if you don't look at the matches themselves, it is kind of empty. What is harder, to play an all time great on a bad day, or a lesser player having the week of his life? When you look at those things 10, 15 years after, it looks obvious that the all time great is always harder, but inside the court it could be quite different. My point is, you need to look at the level of the matches played, and not just the name of the players, if you want to split hair at this level.

 

[Moxie]

Isn't a bit too much to qualify the reporter as a misogynist just because he focused on male players? Yes, he used only the word "player", but "male" was understood in context -- that is, an ellipsis figure of speech. A popular definition of misogyny is "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls". The guy simply focused on male players, while interviewing a male player playing the male tournament. That's context enough. Maybe the guy simply does not pay attention to women's tennis. I completely ignore women tennis and I am definitely not a misogynist.

Maybe "misogynist" goes a bit far, but the question was somewhat more egregious than you portray it. He says, "Querrey is the first US player to reach a major SF since 2009...," and Murray inserts "male player." The reporter was using the default to the "male" as a given, which is a socially misogynistic construct, and Andy was right to call him out. The lack of qualification was actually a bit glaring, given the fame and prominence of the Williams sisters. If the guy is at Wimbledon and gets to ask a question of Andy Murray, he doesn't get to be uninformed about women's tennis. And even if he's not conversant with it but doesn't know about the Williams sisters, he's an idiot. I don't think "context" is enough to forgive the omission, the way the question was asked. Murray corrected him. I think that is the important point about what he did there.

 

[mrzz]

Maybe "misogynist" goes a bit far, but the question was somewhat more egregious than you portray it. He says, "Querrey is the first US player to reach a major SF since 2009...," and Murray inserts "male player." The reporter was using the default to the "male" as a given, which is a socially misogynistic construct, and Andy was right to call him out. The lack of qualification was actually a bit glaring, given the fame and prominence of the Williams sisters. If the guy is at Wimbledon and gets to ask a question of Andy Murray, he doesn't get to be uninformed about women's tennis. And even if he's not conversant with it but doesn't know about the Williams sisters, he's an idiot. I don't think "context" is enough to forgive the omission, the way the question was asked. Murray corrected him. I think that is the important point about what he did there.

Moxie, what if it was the other way around? If someone would ask a female player something like "X is the first German/Mexican/Whateverian player to reach a major SF since 2009..." and then asked player inserts "female player"... the correction proceeds, ok, but that would make the one who asked a "misandrist"? (By the way I had to google that word). No, because it is just the context.

I obviously get the point, but crying wolf all the time does not work in the end.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, what if it was the other way around? If someone would ask a female player something like "X is the first German/Mexican/Whateverian player to reach a major SF since 2009..." and then asked player inserts "female player"... the correction proceeds, ok, but that would make the one who asked a "misandrist"? (By the way I had to google that word). No, because it is just the context.

I obviously get the point, but crying wolf all the time does not work in the end.

It's not "crying wolf." (And your example is unlikely to happen. And not for nothing you had to look up the opposite corollary word. It is basically unknown for a reason.) Let's say Querrey were a Majors stalwart, and Serena or any other US woman hadn't managed a SF of a Major since 2009. The question would have been phrased, "Serena is the first female US player to have reached a Major SF...." You know it would have. Don't even play with me on that. You and I are speakers of Romance languages, where the default between male and female goes to the male. This isn't only in Romance languages. It's a social construct. If I say tennis player, basketball player, or even doctor or politician, everyone pictures a male person. If "female" isn't qualified, standard prejudices kick in. I really don't think you need to be told that.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Andy Murray in any other era would have at least 6+ slams if not more, he really was unlucky to live among the 3 GOATs. But he will always be remembered as a great champion. Besides his 3 slams (11 finals!) he also got 2 Olympic Gold medals, tons of masters 1000, no.1 ranking, etc. Even though I didn't like his attitude on court, always negative and screaming at his team box, I still hope he somehow can have another great run.

 

[Horsa]

It's not "crying wolf." (And your example is unlikely to happen. And not for nothing you had to look up the opposite corollary word. It is basically unknown for a reason.) Let's say Querrey were a Majors stalwart, and Serena or any other US woman hadn't managed a SF of a Major since 2009. The question would have been phrased, "Serena is the first female US player to have reached a Major SF...." You know it would have. Don't even play with me on that. You and I are speakers of Romance languages, where the default between male and female goes to the male. This isn't only in Romance languages. It's a social construct. If I say tennis player, basketball player, or even doctor or politician, everyone pictures a male person. If "female" isn't qualified, standard prejudices kick in. I really don't think you need to be told that.

Excuse me please. If you say tennis player or politician to me among men I do think of some women like Steffi Graf, Monica Seles & Maggie Thatcher & my Dr. is female so I disagree with your over-generalisation.