Andy Murray journalism

[Mastoor]

 

It turns up that there is no tennis journalism in Britain and their tennis journalists don’t deny it, they call themselves Andy Murray correspondents.

This implies that even tennis journalism is state controlled in Britain. How do they achieve that? Do they have one place in charge of approving tennis writing (say BBC) and everyone else is to write in line with them? Or tennis journalists, pardon, “Andy Murray correspondents”, even without being ever told so just instinctively write superlatives of their own and only ace, which is Andy Murray and not so nice about his principle rival, in this case No1e Djokovic?

 

What are implications in USA? If you compare UK and USA media you can notice that Americans often write/talk about Murray in the exact same way their British colleagues do (save the accent of course).

 

There are other things someone may notice around this and related to the Murray’s.

When earlier this year Murray lost to No1e in Melbourne, he didn’t come to the presser to accuse No1e of anything, but when huge crowd of British journalists started insinuating that No1e faked injury during the match, Murray quickly decided to play along.

Next, a Serbian sports journalist, Sasha Ozmo interviewed Judy Murray during Roland Garros and he asked her for a comment about the above scene from the post AO final presser. Judy felt she was in trouble and turned toward a person who the Serbian journalist considered her PR standing near her and when the same question was asked again just a little changed the “PR person” removed Judy Murray from the interview saying she was supposed to be somewhere else.

 

Finally, if one quite large sport like tennis revolves around one person in a country with such noisy media like UK, then that person is that country’s statesman, isn’t he?

 

 

 

[Moxie]

Mastoor, you expressed your displeasure with the British media towards Novak in another thread. You've woven quite a narrative, but you don't produce concrete examples. You're asking us to believe your memory of it, and your interpretation. It would be helpful if you provided supportive links. Do you honestly believe that UK media is completely state-controlled? That they are Murray-centric is true. But you may have missed that they've slagged him hugely, too, over the years.

As to Melbourne, here is the Guardian on the match, and it's pretty fair. This betrays no anti-Djokovic bias, and there is no mention of faking injury.

Perhaps this is what you're talking about. But still, it doesn't seem that damning.

You may have other examples. But, honestly, I don't think it's some big cabal between the British (and US) media and making Murray look good, or Nole look bad, as you seem to say.

And your last point has me very confused, as you say: "Finally, if one quite large sport like tennis revolves around one person in a country with such noisy media like UK, then that person is that country’s statesman, isn’t he?" Not clear how the beginning of that phrase leads you to its end conclusion. I don't think Murray has ever embraced being the statesman for the UK. On the other had, Novak HAS been his small country's great ambassador to the rest of the world, if that is perhaps why you try to equate it. Murray may not be especially a representative for the UK, but at least he claims residence there.

 

[britbox]

Murray is under the microscope in the UK and obviously there is a big focus on him, particularly when Wimbledon comes around as the football and rugby seasons have finished.

I'm not sure why you are so surprised @Mastoor, it's not as if this is unique to the UK. Most national press pay a lot of attention to their own native players. Australia, the US and Serbia are pretty biased in their coverage of natives, No?

 

[Federberg]

Speaking as someone who is actually UK based, and reads the sports sections avidly. Murray has only become a fan favourite in the last few years, after his Wimbledon loss and Olympic win vs Federer. He was actively disliked by the English before that. Rather unfairly. As for the press being Murray centric? I think your outlook is a bit dated actually. Increasingly there is a lot of talk about the women.. it's not as Murray dominated as you might think.

 

What is irritating is the punditry in the UK. There is a tendency to write off Federer at the majors which is just rank stupid. During Wimbledon all these so called experts were convinced it was going to be a Djokovic Murray final from the start. They all assumed he would somehow get past Roger. It was inexplicable, and frankly it made his eventual beatdown even more satisfying

 

 

 

[brokenshoelace]

This thread reminds me, where is Iona? @britbox any news of her?

 

[britbox]

@brokenshoelace - I've sent Iona a note.  Yes, would be great if she signed up - Fingers crossed.

 

[britbox]

Speaking as someone who is actually UK based, and reads the sports sections avidly. Murray has only become a fan favourite in the last few years, after his Wimbledon loss and Olympic win vs Federer. He was actively disliked by the English before that. Rather unfairly. As for the press being Murray centric? I think your outlook is a bit dated actually. Increasingly there is a lot of talk about the women.. it’s not as Murray dominated as you might think. What is irritating is the punditry in the UK. There is a tendency to write off Federer at the majors which is just rank stupid. During Wimbledon all these so called experts were convinced it was going to be a Djokovic Murray final from the start. They all assumed he would somehow get past Roger. It was inexplicable, and frankly it made his eventual beatdown even more satisfying

I think part of the issue is that come Wimbledon, you get all the football beat writers suddenly writing about tennis (as the football season has finished)... and to a large degree, talking utter crap.

 

[Mastoor]

Just minutes after No1e won Masters in Shanghai, Greg Rusedski and Annabel Croft of SkySports started talking about Murray taking over #1 after USO next year. This left me with my mouth wide open. Another player just won the Masters, his third big tournament in a row, the same player who is #1 by having almost double points of #2, who beat Murray in the same tournament and who won 9 of their last 10 matches, yet they talk about Murray overtaking him as if that was set in stone.

Not only that this shocked me, it also made me scared for No1e. What can save Novak is that he is not the only one in Murray’s way. In last two slams Murray didn’t even get to play with No1e because he lost both semifinals to Federer. Nadal is coming back to his old form and he has very good h2h with Murray. Wawrinka isn’t be considered outsider against Murray anymore. Finally, it is not No1e who is Murray’s worst enemy, it is Murray’s relative inconsistency or if you prefer, Murray lacks consistency required for #1 ever since Fed replaced Roddick in February 2004.

 

 

 

[Mastoor]

Murray is under the microscope in the UK and obviously there is a big focus on him, particularly when Wimbledon comes around as the football and rugby seasons have finished. I’m not sure why you are so surprised @Mastoor, it’s not as if this is unique to the UK. Most national press pay a lot of attention to their own native players. Australia, the US and Serbia are pretty biased in their coverage of natives, No?

As far as Serbian press is concerned, I think I already explained to BS that there is no tennis journalism in Serbia. There are several people who dare to write about tennis from time to time, namely Sasa Ozmo (basketball journalist for b92), Nebojsa Viskovic who is coach/journalist/whateverelsetennisrelated, both deeply in love with Rafa Nadal. There's Ana Mitric who is a US based No1e fan and whose text get rarely  published on b92. I also saw several other people writing on occasion, but I don't remember their names. Most time Serbian media just translate what they write overseas or what they found in social media. It is as much about Serbian tennis player as about foreign top players. Of course, little bit more about Nole than everyone else.

People in West may perceive Serbia as a tennis superpower due to so many top players in recent year, however there are only a little over than 1,000 registered tennis players in Serbia (I think the number is around 200 in neighbouring Croatia including Ivanisevic and even less in other Balkan countries). No1e is extremely popular over there, but that hardly made everyone loving tennis. It is still considered a sport for snobs.

You know better than I about Australian press but each time I read it they actually talk badly about Tomic or Kyrgios (Dokic dad in ols times, perhaps everyone Wog). I didn't see them being biased toward Australian players at all, but I read them rarely so I wouldn't know for sure. I sometimes buy Australian tennis magazine, which is not biased to Asutralians at all. In fact I like to see how much coverage No1e and Ana get, much more than in UK or US media.

 

Finally, US media, I don't see them biased toward American players. They are money driven, they talk mostly about the players whose sponsor  pays most ads. Serena may make you think they are "patriotic", but the other players they largely talk about are not Americans, they are though from Serena's sponsorland, Sharapova, Federer & Nadal. They can't totally avoid talking about #1, so he gets some coverage too.

 

As far as British media is concerned it is with total focus on Murray. Federberg is correct that this is only in last couple of years, after they were dedicated to Fed and I'll explain why they were in love with Fed in my next post.

 

I'd just like to add here that it is possibly unfair to call the media I am talking about British (even though some of them are managed by British government). Whenever I checked the Scottish sites, they were unlike those London based, absolutely fair to No1e. So I must apologise to Scots if there are any feeling bashed by me on this occasion, here I talk about those London based journalists.

 

 

[mikecase]

It turns up that there is no tennis journalism in Britain and their tennis journalists don’t deny it, they call themselves Andy Murray correspondents. This implies that even tennis journalism is state controlled in Britain. 

No they don't. Rubbish. I haven't seen a journalist calling themselves Andy Murray correspondents. Why these Murray haters keep making up stuff like this is beyond me.