Ashley Fisher: We Will Never Know How Good Any Murray Is

[Murat Baslamisli]

Tennis Channel's Ashley Fisher made a statement the other night saying "We will never really know how good Andy Murray really is" due to his ATTITUDE.

He noted the other members of the "Big Four" have steely, ultra confident demeanor and just get on with it regardless of what gets thrown their way. Rarely do you see negative body language, foul language, or anything but resolve. Except on the rarest of occasions.

It's a silly statement, really. Andy Murray is Andy Murray. We know how good he is. In fact, we know how good Andy Murray really is. So good he's won two Majors, been in seven Major finals, won nine Masters, an Olympic gold medal, and so on. And if we took away his "attitude" he may not have won any of them.

....how about if he had a DIFFERENT attitude he would have won more..say FIVE or SIX majors?

But Murray's attitude comes with Murray. How bout if he had a better forehand??? That "How bout if" game can go on forever.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Doubt that somehow. He was outplayed in the finals he lost (obviously or he would have won) and he hasn't been in any more slam finals since the two he won. So I dunno how he could possibly have 5 or 6 slams.

Really? I am not sure. He choked away at least 2 finals, and was probably outplayed in the others. You are also omitting many semis where he just froze up or went negative.

 

[Front242]

Which finals would you say he choked away. He was lucky to beat Djokovic at the US Open given how he let him back in after being 2 sets up but he still won that so which would you say he choked away out of interest? Also, the semis don't even count 'cos how could he even put himself in a position to win those by not even making the final. Maybe he was simply outplayed there too. And even then, who's to say if he'd won those semis he'd have won the final either. He's doing well to be currently holding 2 slams. Andy Roddick finished his career with just 1 and Andy's faced some extremely tough opponents in finals just like Roddick did. But to Murray's credit he's got 2 slams, which is still very good.

PS: I cited Roddick as an example of a guy who reached about the same number of slam finals and semis in his career but retired with 1 slam. Andy has 2 and is 4 years younger than Roddick when he retired so I don't see him as underachieving by any means and his career is far from over. Just so happens they're both called Andy as well.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Which finals would you say he choked away. He was lucky to beat Djokovic at the US Open given how he let him back in after being 2 sets up but he still won that so which would you say he choked away out of interest? Also, the semis don't even count 'cos how could he even put himself in a position to win those by not even making the final. Maybe he was simply outplayed there too. And even then, who's to say if he'd won those semis he'd have won the final either. He's doing well to be currently holding 2 slams. Andy Roddick finished his career with just 1 and Andy's faced some extremely tough opponents in finals just like Roddick did. But to Murray's credit he's got 2 slams, which is still very good.

PS: I cited Roddick as an example of a guy who reached about the same number of slam finals and semis in his career but retired with 1 slam. Andy has 2 and is 4 years younger than Roddick when he retired so I don't see him as underachieving by any means and his career is far from over. Just so happens they're both called Andy as well.

Interesting post. I see Roddick, if anything, as OVER achieving given his skill sets. I loved his competitive fire and overall command of his domain.

I think you could argue that Murray choked away the first Wimbledon final up a set and a break. The Joker Aussie destruction was a true embarrassment.

So, ok, including semis may be a stretch...

 

[Front242]

Which finals would you say he choked away. He was lucky to beat Djokovic at the US Open given how he let him back in after being 2 sets up but he still won that so which would you say he choked away out of interest? Also, the semis don't even count 'cos how could he even put himself in a position to win those by not even making the final. Maybe he was simply outplayed there too. And even then, who's to say if he'd won those semis he'd have won the final either. He's doing well to be currently holding 2 slams. Andy Roddick finished his career with just 1 and Andy's faced some extremely tough opponents in finals just like Roddick did. But to Murray's credit he's got 2 slams, which is still very good.

PS: I cited Roddick as an example of a guy who reached about the same number of slam finals and semis in his career but retired with 1 slam. Andy has 2 and is 4 years younger than Roddick when he retired so I don't see him as underachieving by any means and his career is far from over. Just so happens they're both called Andy as well.

Interesting post. I see Roddick, if anything, as OVER achieving given his skill sets. I loved his competitive fire and overall command of his domain.

I think you could argue that Murray choked away the first Wimbledon final up a set and a break. The Joker Aussie destruction was a true embarrassment.

So, ok, including semis may be a stretch...

Had a feeling you might have meant that one but I guess you missed the play by the great Roger Federer at the end of set 2. Come on. Roger took the set with inspired play and he just notched it up several gears after that. When I watched the first set and indeed 90% of the 2nd I thought Murray was going to win it, but equally so I don't for one second think Andy choked there. Roger had a throwback to his best years with that performance. Similar to his defeat of Djokovic at RG 2011. Hardly a choke by Djokovic either.

And anyway that would make only 3 slams if he'd even won that one but you said he should have 5 or 6 slams by now?! Edit: I see you referenced the Australian open final against Djokovic too. Well, if you want to go down that route look at the pathetic performance by Djokovic at Wimbledon last year and indeed much of the US Open match. He can't play in wind it's clear but either way, it goes both ways if you care to label Murray's play in some pathetic, frankly so was Djokovic's.

In the end it evened out anyway as both took 2 slams off each other so it's fair enough either way given that both didn't play their best in the ones they lost. Ministry of the bleedin' obviously really

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Which finals would you say he choked away. He was lucky to beat Djokovic at the US Open given how he let him back in after being 2 sets up but he still won that so which would you say he choked away out of interest? Also, the semis don't even count 'cos how could he even put himself in a position to win those by not even making the final. Maybe he was simply outplayed there too. And even then, who's to say if he'd won those semis he'd have won the final either. He's doing well to be currently holding 2 slams. Andy Roddick finished his career with just 1 and Andy's faced some extremely tough opponents in finals just like Roddick did. But to Murray's credit he's got 2 slams, which is still very good.

PS: I cited Roddick as an example of a guy who reached about the same number of slam finals and semis in his career but retired with 1 slam. Andy has 2 and is 4 years younger than Roddick when he retired so I don't see him as underachieving by any means and his career is far from over. Just so happens they're both called Andy as well.

Interesting post. I see Roddick, if anything, as OVER achieving given his skill sets. I loved his competitive fire and overall command of his domain.

I think you could argue that Murray choked away the first Wimbledon final up a set and a break. The Joker Aussie destruction was a true embarrassment.

So, ok, including semis may be a stretch...

Had a feeling you might have meant that one but I guess you missed the play by the great Roger Federer at the end of set 2. Come on. Roger took the set with inspired play and he just notched it up several gears after that. When I watched the first set and indeed 90% of the 2nd I thought Murray was going to win it, but equally so I don't for one second think Andy choked there. Roger had a throwback to his best years with that performance. Similar to his defeat of Djokovic at RG 2011. Hardly a choke by Djokovic either.

And anyway that would make only 3 slams if he'd even won that one but you said he should have 5 or 6 slams by now?! Edit: I see you referenced the Australian open final against Djokovic too. Well, if you want to go down that route look at the pathetic performance by Djokovic at Wimbledon last year and indeed much of the US Open match. He can't play in wind it's clear but either way, it goes both ways if you care to label Murray's play in some pathetic, frankly so was Djokovic's.

In the end it evened out anyway as both took 2 slams off each other so it's fair enough either way given that both didn't play their best in the ones they lost. Ministry of the bleedin' obviously really

Djoker, pathetic??? So the 5 hour semi with DelPo was not a factor?

 

[Front242]

^ Of course it was but Murray also played very well. I dunno how many lame netted shots Djokovic hit and we've seen him play long matches before and still come in fresh in the final.

 

[Front242]

If you want a prime example of a choke go talk to Fernando Verdasco about his match against Murray at Wimbledon last year but I don't see that Murray choked away any slam finals or semis personally. Just outplayed.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^ Of course it was but Murray also played very well. I dunno how many lame netted shots Djokovic hit and we've seen him play long matches before and still come in fresh in the final.

Murrays semi was 2 hours less. Joker and Delpo set a record for longest semi.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

If you want a prime example of a choke go talk to Fernando Verdasco about his match against Murray at Wimbledon last year but I don't see that Murray choked away any slam finals or semis personally. Just outplayed.

Arggghhhhh! Don't remind me!!! I lost sleep over that!!uzzled

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

that gabby logan thing..

i mean andy was a tiebreak away from another Olympic gold and got silver, so in his head they had 'lost' the final/gold instead of thinking he/and laura had 'won' a silver.

 

[Front242]

If you want a prime example of a choke go talk to Fernando Verdasco about his match against Murray at Wimbledon last year but I don't see that Murray choked away any slam finals or semis personally. Just outplayed.

Arggghhhhh! Don't remind me!!! I lost sleep over that!!uzzled

Well that was a glaring example of a major choke but Murray's slam finals and semis weren't imo. Gasquet's loss to Murray at Wimbledon when up 2 sets was a muppet choke as well.

 

[Front242]

^ Of course it was but Murray also played very well. I dunno how many lame netted shots Djokovic hit and we've seen him play long matches before and still come in fresh in the final.

Murrays semi was 2 hours less. Joker and Delpo set a record for longest semi.

In the last 3 years Djokovic has proven himself to be every bit as fit as Nadal who came in fresh as a daisy in the AO '09 after beating Verdasco in an equally long match and indeed after a long enough one against Novak at RG last year. I don't think that was a huge factor tbh. A factor naturally, but not a huge one. The way Novak played was why he lost and also Andy played far better.

 

[Front242]

^ Mental fatigue more than physical but Andy had the huge pressure of expectation in his 2nd Wimbledon final so it was a hard task for him too and he handled it better.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not sure the DP semi was a factor, but Murray didn't choke the Wimbledon final in 2012 - he just wasn't ready. Federer hung in there - as Front says - and took the second. Where was Murray after this? There were two more sets and for a large part Roger was playing so great, I thought i was watching an exo. Plus, playing indoor - a cardinal sin for me, as far as slam finals go - didn't help him.

He lost against Roger in two other finals. I would say he was too young in Flushing Meadows in 2008, just like Nole the previous year. They were still in development, and in 2010, in Australia, he lost in straights. He was hammered. There's nothing in Murray's game to say he could withstand that kind of play - so going AWOL mentally wouldn't matter. He could buy an icecream while he's at it, wouldn't make much odds.

I thought he did very well to win the slams he did, hanging tough in very stressful circumstances against Nole, who both times - I felt - came up short when he put his hand in his pocket...

 

[Front242]

I'm not sure the DP semi was a factor, but Murray didn't choke the Wimbledon final in 2012 - he just wasn't ready. Federer hung in there - as Front says - and took the second. Where was Murray after this? There were two more sets and for a large part Roger was playing so great, I thought i was watching an exo. Plus, playing indoor - a cardinal sin for me, as far as slam finals go - didn't help him.

He lost against Roger in two other finals. I would say he was too young in Flushing Meadows in 2008, just like Nole the previous year. They were still in development, and in 2010, in Australia, he lost in straights. He was hammered. There's nothing in Murray's game to say he could withstand that kind of play - so going AWOL mentally wouldn't matter. He could buy an icecream while he's at it, wouldn't make much odds.

I thought he did very well to win the slams he did, hanging tough in very stressful circumstances against Nole, who both times - I felt - came up short when he put his hand in his pocket...

Confucius say: "Man with hand in pocket, feel cocky all day"

 

[Iona16]

Iona is the one major part I really, really like about Andy. When he wins, the thought of her being pleased makes me smile.

The other thing I like is when he does play aggressive tennis - he can run an opponent around the court like few I've seen, and pull the trigger at will. It's beautiful when he chooses to do it.

I know it's off topic, but I thought it good to say something nice about the guy.

For sure, I like his game a lot more these days when he plays aggressive tennis. Even before his surgery though, the often slow/passive and frequently dropped opening sets made many matches of his a chore to watch. I can't remember the number of times in both slams and other events that he's lost the opening set and gone on to win the match. If he could be more aggressive from the outset it'd work better for him.

Yes, I agree, many of this matches were a chore to watch, regardless of winning or losing the first set.

He would basically do nothing, and the other player would spray the ball all over the place, next thing you know, a yawn, and handshake. Look, even in the UK they often were either indifferent or downright negative about him..until he got to the Wimby final.

What do you mean by the UK press? The Scottish press have always been largely positive about Andy. The English press portrayed him as anti-English for years. They played their part in the Andy Murray that the public saw over the years.

 

[Rose]

Iona is the one major part I really, really like about Andy. When he wins, the thought of her being pleased makes me smile.

The other thing I like is when he does play aggressive tennis - he can run an opponent around the court like few I've seen, and pull the trigger at will. It's beautiful when he chooses to do it.

I know it's off topic, but I thought it good to say something nice about the guy.

For sure, I like his game a lot more these days when he plays aggressive tennis. Even before his surgery though, the often slow/passive and frequently dropped opening sets made many matches of his a chore to watch. I can't remember the number of times in both slams and other events that he's lost the opening set and gone on to win the match. If he could be more aggressive from the outset it'd work better for him.

Yes, I agree, many of this matches were a chore to watch, regardless of winning or losing the first set.

He would basically do nothing, and the other player would spray the ball all over the place, next thing you know, a yawn, and handshake. Look, even in the UK they often were either indifferent or downright negative about him..until he got to the Wimby final.

What do you mean by the UK press? The Scottish press have always been largely positive about Andy. The English press portrayed him as anti-English for years. They played their part in the Andy Murray that the public saw over the years.

I certainly agree with the part about the press! The English press couldn't stand the fact that Andy wasn't English. As if Andy could help that! But I think since he won Wimbledon they have let it go after all he is from the U.K. And on top of that Kim is English and I believe Andy even lives in England now?

 

[tented]

^ Of course it was but Murray also played very well. I dunno how many lame netted shots Djokovic hit and we've seen him play long matches before and still come in fresh in the final.

Murrays semi was 2 hours less. Joker and Delpo set a record for longest semi.

In the last 3 years Djokovic has proven himself to be every bit as fit as Nadal who came in fresh as a daisy in the AO '09 after beating Verdasco in an equally long match and indeed after a long enough one against Novak at RG last year. I don't think that was a huge factor tbh. A factor naturally, but not a huge one. The way Novak played was why he lost and also Andy played far better.

And Novak did the same in 2012 at the AO as Rafa did in '09: played the second semi, which went five sets, then won the final, also in five sets. He's shown he can handle long semis, which lead into long finals. This wasn't why he lost the Wimbledon final.