I don’t understand why so many “experts” are predicting a “great tennis future” for this ugly wuss. Nothing great in tennis will ever happen for Murray - you heard here first.

Zeg - very insightful commentary - what makes you think so? Also, what exactly is a “wuss”? Also, what’s the meaning behind double-quoting “experts”?

Looking forward to hearing your interesting commentary zeg!

Dancevic FAN!-

Congratulations on your man’s entry into the main draw; he’s perfectly capable of beating Safin.

A “wuss” (in this case) is someone who whines, complains and generally displays bad attitude and no guts in tough situations - we’ve seen Murray doing that repeatedly. Can you imagine Federer, Nadal, Sampras or any other champion throwing loud verbal abuse at a coach during the match? The Brits put up with it since he’s their only hope, however faint (Tim Henman - the sequel). Brad Gilbert puts up with it since he’s getting paid so much money he’s probably pinching himself every morning.
The experts differ from the “experts” the way a real doctor differs from the actor who plays one on TV.
Someone like Patrick McEnroe, whose tennis credentials begin and end with his last name, is a case in point. Due to his family connections he has obtained a cushy TV gig for which he has zero qualifications. Despite his total lack of credibility, he’s being presented as THE authority on all things tennis.
In the American media’s relentless drive to turn every sporting event into a soap opera, the “know-it-all guru” role here is filled by a rambling never-has-been who dispenses his meaningless opinions that may only impress a casual viewer.

Murray will win at least one Slam event. You heard it here first!

Colin -

Barring a plane crash/retirement/injury of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and a dozen others all at the same time, your prediction may only materialize if Murray follows his brother into the mixed doubles.

Here’s a brilliant quote from Sue Mott:
“What are the three most pathetic words in English language? Come on, Tim!”.

Time to substitute the name to “Andy”.

Dancevic will have an extremely tough first round match for him in Safin, but Safin hasn’t been playing at his best lately. It seems Safin is trying to get back that confidence he once had, meanwhile Dancevic is flying high on confidence because of his performance in the past month. If Dancevic were to start against Federer, Nadal, Djokovic or even Roddick, I sense that he wouldn’t get to round 2. But somehow I have a feeling that this first round will be a good opportunity for him to beat Safin because of their recent histories.

Murray shows his emotions on court and he’s still young, not surprising to me. Sometimes its nice to see players express their inner turmoil that they’re feeling in the ways that they do.

If I had to guess, an ex-pro like Patrick McEnroe, despite not having the most successful singles history, was a pro after all, won quite a few doubles tourneys, and worked hard to be one. Further he’s been the U.S. Davis cup captain for quite some time. He’s basically eats, sleeps and breathes tennis and has for decades.

Zeg, maybe for you your necessary standard of qualifications for a commentator is higher, perhaps someone who has won multiple grandslams, but I think that his credentials suffice to be able to provide adequate commentary.

I think it’s hard to predict Murray’s future success, he’s very young still and has had a very injury prone year. But, he does seem to have proven at his young age that he has a thoughtful all-round game. He just needs more strength and mental toughness.

If you don’t like Patrick McEnroe, Zeg, how about John?

He’s said, several times, Murray’s the real deal.

Yes, there’s something unpleasant about Murray’s attitude on court. Whereas Safin, say, when he gets into a rant, it’s in frustration with himself, life, whatever, but never anybody else - he’s a notably fair sportsman actually - Murray tends to dump his troubles on other shoulders.

Not nice.

But what a player! He reminds me a bit of Mecir, who also had that wonderful deceptive change of pace. Didn’t win much though. Murray’s nastier - he probably will.

Unless you’re blind or listening to a radio broadcast, tennis needs minimum commentary, and BBC, for one, has proved it. When was the last time you heard something truly insightful? The un-ending chatter over the points is irritating and distracting; that is why the fans keep quiet in the stands.
p-mac - the Paris Hilton of tennis -
has a serious inferiority complex, and the perennial chip on his shoulder quite possibly is the reason behind his diarrhea of the mouth. Hanging around tennis apparently did not teach him much - hence the preposterous statements like “Nadal will never make a Wimbledon final”.
Becoming the U.S. Davis Cup captain almost by default - there was a dearth of candidates after his brother had stepped on too many toes - he did not exactly distinguished himself even at this largely ceremonial post.
Other than his awkward prosthetic-like arms and a mechanical voice, the guy is as bland as they come(can you tell I’m fond of him?).

Bland perhaps, inferiority complex - not sure. Re broadcasting, BBC airs matches differently from ESPN . ESPN goes to commercial more than BBC, thus less time between points to hear commentary, and so you hear commentary more during points on ESPN.

I don’t mind Patrick, things could be worse. I think he’s a very tennis-educated commentator.

The reality is commentators make opinionated comments which helps to make the commentary interesting. Of course they’re not always right - even Federer himself doubted Nadal’s capability to make it to a second Wimbledon final before it happened…no one, not even the best current active player in the world, can make accurate predictions - but it doesn’t hurt to hear what they all have to say. I’d rather hear their predictions and commentary than those of an armchair athlete or weekend warrior.

But not everyone is for everyone. He doesn’t seem to push the wrong buttons for me.

Other thing too is there needs to be commentary all the time, since they’re serving a wide audience - new fans that know little about the game, fans just tuning in at any point, etc. They can’t please everyone.

grendel -

I consider John McEnroe to be by far the most insightful tennis pundit of all. Although I still dislike him periodically getting off on a tangent, at least he can be entertaining with his self-deprecating humor.
As for his assessment of Murray’s abilities, I doubt John can be truly honest and objective here. He is revered in the UK, perhaps even more than in the U.S., and he has extensive ties with BBC and the British tennis establishment. He’s anything but stupid to upset the apple cart.

Believe it or not, I got to hit with the “Cat” Miroslav back in the old days, and the guy could move indeed…A major underachiever, he moved on to coaching.

You got to hit with the Cat, Zeg?

Wow! That’s some company to be moving in.

Hope you can tolerate the comments of a mere fan.

The way I would put it is this: you don’t have to be a musician to enjoy music as much as a musician. You won’t know the ins and outs - but you may appreciate the finished product more, less, or much the same - just depends.

Same wwith tennis.

Dancevic FAN! -

Debating matters of taste can be as amusing as it is fruitless. You can enjoy TV voice-overs while I push the “mute” button on my remote.
However often you get to watch live tennis, do you find yourself missing the soundtrack?
I surely don’t.

Taste and opinion always differ and that’s not my debate. I was trying to simply point out to you that although you don’t like a particular player or commentator, that doesn’t give you the right to devalue and deprecate what they do.

Surely a professional or very good tennis player (just as in music or any profession) wouldn’t do such a thing. It’s just immature.

Whether an action is mature or immature has nothing to do with the status (in this case, professional or “armchair”) of the person who commits the action, propounds a view, etc.

I’m genuinely puzzled, though, not that Zeg dislikes Murray - that’s subjective - but that he doesn’t rate his ability - and that’s not, on the whole.

I first saw Berdych playing Agassi in A.O several years ago. I had not heard of him, he was being beaten quite easily, and yet it was immediately apparent to me - a mere armchair spectator - that here was someone of huge talent. I was very keen to see how he would do, and was at first gratified (though am now disappointed - he seems to have stalled somehow).

I have felt same way about Murray - in terms of talent, I mean, his range of skills is obviously quite different.

Even if he’s not your cup of tea - fair enough - how can one deny the talent ? In the match in which he incurred his unfortunate injury, against Volandri, his forehand in particular was quite awesome.

grendel -

No-one’s “denying the talent” of Murray - God knows, to make it to the top 10 or even 50 in tennis, nowadays you’re going to need talent.
The key words here are “great future”. If you ask an active tennis pro what would that mean, odds are you’ll hear “winning a Slam” - as in “at least one of four tournaments, at least once”.
I am saying that from what I’ve seen so far, it ain’t gonna happen to Murray.
And speaking of Berdych, I think he still has a better chance than Murray to make it big; he’s definitely a bigger talent.

Dancevic FAN! -

LOL.

“Immature”? We’re here to express opinions, not to pass judgments on each other, aren’t we? You like something that I don’t. End of story.
Don’t be so sure you are in a position 100% of the time to determine what is and what is not “immature”.

Perhaps. One thing about Berdych which has disappointed me is the way he always allows Davidenko to tie him in knots. He never seems to learn, just tries to blast his way out of trouble - plays into Davy’s hands. Murray was beaten comprehensively by Davydenko in his first match against him - but he took note, changed his game accordingly, and turned the tables. That was impressive. Remains to be seen whether he can take it further.

Berdych, Murray, Hernych, Gasquet and even Baghdatis are good examples of how talent alone is not enough to make it to the top. I happen to believe the character plays more important role.
You’re either born with it like Nadal, or develop it like Federer, but you need both.

Absolutely. I think I sense steel lurking somewhere in the undergrowth. Let us see if it can break through the petulance which tends to characterise Murray’s caste of mind.

Zeg -

You immaturely passed judgments on respectable people in the industry within your commentary, so I’m not too sure about the validity of your passing judgments point.

Belittling others is usually the work of narcissistic wanna-bes, immature people, angry washed up has-beens, or general failures in life / angry people. Surely you don’t want to set that impression about yourself.

Anyway, I’ll be sure to ignore your future similar posts since you’re likely to defend them as you have here.

Dancevic FAN! -

LMAO!

You sure sound self-righteous for someone who is brooding over Sharapova’s pimples! Can’t get excited over her rash, the arbiter of good taste, eh?
Get a life.

Carrying on your theme mate

Dancevic fan,

As a fellow Canuck, I’d love to side with you here, but I think zeg’s right on this: blogs are about posting opinions, which certainly include passing judgment (dictionary definition “opinion: a view or a judgment about something”), no?

But the judgment should be passed on those within the tennis realm - be it commentators, writers, or, of course, players - not on blogger’s personalities! Occasionally you laspe into psychoanalyzing other bloggers (i.e. with Wade and his “anger” issues) instead of focusing on the posting content.

I’d suggest that you stick to tennis, which you clearly know a lot about, eh?

Just a suggestion.

Hi Jane, I don’t know that much about tennis, but I do enjoy it! And you have a good suggestion as well. I just thoroughly do not enjoy hearing others that simply post things like “for this ugly wuss” as well as “rambling never has been” which seems quite insulting and demeaning towards others who clearly are more superior in the tennis world than the formidable “zeg” happens to be.

But you are right - it’s his right to say whatever he wants, I will ignore this type of armchair athlete commentary and apologize for getting personal!