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

[Murat B.]

I don't quite get the premise of Fisher's observation. Andy Murray is a total package. He comes with his attitude. You cannot separate him from his attitude. For me it is almost like saying " we don't know how good Murray would be if he had a better second serve" . Attitude is as important as a second serve. So, we KNOW how good Murray can be: THIS is it. If he changes certain things in the future, then we will know how good THAT Murray can be too.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I don't quite get the premise of Fisher's observation. Andy Murray is a total package. He comes with his attitude. You cannot separate him from his attitude. For me it is almost like saying " we don't know how good Murray would be if he had a better second serve" . Attitude is as important as a second serve. So, we KNOW how good Murray can be: THIS is it. If he changes certain things in the future, then we will know how good THAT Murray can be too.

I bet to differ that Murray is the total package. He is forehand is several notches below Nadal, Feds, and Jokers. His second serve is sub par, and he wastes tons of energy with the chatting.

The proof, again, is in the pudding. He ranted and complained during his loss to baby fed, and federer, being supremely in control under high pressure, with better competition, wins dubai.

 

[Kieran]

The proof, again, is in the pudding. He ranted and complained during his loss to baby fed, and federer, being supremely in control under high pressure, with better competition, wins dubai.

That's hardly "proof", is it? He may have ranted and still won. When he's winning a match and chucks it through a bout of negative self-reflection, then we could be onto something. But Murray has worked hard on himself and two majors in a 12 month span proves it...

 

[Moxie]

I don't quite get the premise of Fisher's observation. Andy Murray is a total package. He comes with his attitude. You cannot separate him from his attitude. For me it is almost like saying " we don't know how good Murray would be if he had a better second serve" . Attitude is as important as a second serve. So, we KNOW how good Murray can be: THIS is it. If he changes certain things in the future, then we will know how good THAT Murray can be too.

I bet to differ that Murray is the total package. He is forehand is several notches below Nadal, Feds, and Jokers. His second serve is sub par, and he wastes tons of energy with the chatting.

The proof, again, is in the pudding. He ranted and complained during his loss to baby fed, and federer, being supremely in control under high pressure, with better competition, wins dubai.

Not to speak for Murat, but he wrote "…Murray is A total package." I took him to mean that his attitude is part of everything that he brings with him. Not THE total package, in that he has all the tools, like a Fed. I.e., how can you separate that out. I agree with this.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I don't quite get the premise of Fisher's observation. Andy Murray is a total package. He comes with his attitude. You cannot separate him from his attitude. For me it is almost like saying " we don't know how good Murray would be if he had a better second serve" . Attitude is as important as a second serve. So, we KNOW how good Murray can be: THIS is it. If he changes certain things in the future, then we will know how good THAT Murray can be too.

I bet to differ that Murray is the total package. He is forehand is several notches below Nadal, Feds, and Jokers. His second serve is sub par, and he wastes tons of energy with the chatting.

The proof, again, is in the pudding. He ranted and complained during his loss to baby fed, and federer, being supremely in control under high pressure, with better competition, wins dubai.

Not to speak for Murat, but he wrote "…Murray is A total package." I took him to mean that his attitude is part of everything that he brings with him. Not THE total package, in that he has all the tools, like a Fed. I.e., how can you separate that out. I agree with this.

The point that I have been trying to make, but not with much success, is that I don't believe you "are what you are" and that is it.

Lendl, Federer, Djokovic, Agassi and others went through DRAMATIC changes in their mental approaches, and with it came success.

The Lendl of 1981 and 1986 are two totally different people. Same for the Agassi of 1990 and 1999.

How about mope Wawrinka from just two years ago to chest out Ausssie Champ in 2014?

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way Lux, didn't you say Murray was the 4th best player you've ever seen after Federer, Nadal and Djokovic? Sounds like you know how good he is.

 

[Kieran]

^^ Yeah, he said he's better than Sampras, which makes Murray some sort of GOATee...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

By the way Lux, didn't you say Murray was the 4th best player you've ever seen after Federer, Nadal and Djokovic? Sounds like you know how good he is.

Yes I did, SPECIFIC to the areas of movement, backhand, and counter punching.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^^ Yeah, he said he's better than Sampras, which makes Murray some sort of GOATee...

Incorrect. I said he could, and would beat Sampras. Never said he was "better". Although parts of his game are. Not his forehand, not his volleys, and not his mental approach.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^ Yeah, he said he's better than Sampras, which makes Murray some sort of GOATee...

Incorrect. I said he could, and would beat Sampras. Never said he was "better". Although parts of his game are. Not his forehand, not his volleys, and not his mental approach.

Your exact quote was:

"P.S. I have been lucky enough to see every #1 in person since 1981..Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agasssi, Muster, Safin all the way down the line.

Fed and Rafa are the two best tennis players I have ever seen, bar none. Joker and Murray right behind, by a hair."

Anyway, my point is, you seem to know how good Murray is to make this assessment.

 

[Kieran]

^^ Yeah, he said he's better than Sampras, which makes Murray some sort of GOATee...

Incorrect. I said he could, and would beat Sampras. Never said he was "better". Although parts of his game are. Not his forehand, not his volleys, and not his mental approach.

Of course he'd beat Sampras.

Sampras is 42 years old...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^^ Yeah, he said he's better than Sampras, which makes Murray some sort of GOATee...

Incorrect. I said he could, and would beat Sampras. Never said he was "better". Although parts of his game are. Not his forehand, not his volleys, and not his mental approach.

Of course he'd beat Sampras.

Sampras is 42 years old...

:

clap

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^^ Yeah, he said he's better than Sampras, which makes Murray some sort of GOATee...

Incorrect. I said he could, and would beat Sampras. Never said he was "better". Although parts of his game are. Not his forehand, not his volleys, and not his mental approach.

Your exact quote was:

"P.S. I have been lucky enough to see every #1 in person since 1981..Borg, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agasssi, Muster, Safin all the way down the line.

Fed and Rafa are the two best tennis players I have ever seen, bar none. Joker and Murray right behind, by a hair."

Anyway, my point is, you seem to know how good Murray is to make this assessment.

Having sat courtside for every top ten player since 1981, and through countess Sampras practice sessions and matches, along all with the rest, it is a different level today. Sampras is the best server in the history of the game, bar none, great volleyer, mover, and running forehand. Still not as impressive as Murray in full flight...from my perspective.

 

[Riotbeard]

I don't quite get the premise of Fisher's observation. Andy Murray is a total package. He comes with his attitude. You cannot separate him from his attitude. For me it is almost like saying " we don't know how good Murray would be if he had a better second serve" . Attitude is as important as a second serve. So, we KNOW how good Murray can be: THIS is it. If he changes certain things in the future, then we will know how good THAT Murray can be too.

I bet to differ that Murray is the total package. He is forehand is several notches below Nadal, Feds, and Jokers. His second serve is sub par, and he wastes tons of energy with the chatting.

The proof, again, is in the pudding. He ranted and complained during his loss to baby fed, and federer, being supremely in control under high pressure, with better competition, wins dubai.

Anecdotal evidence.

Here is anecdotal evidence of a match Andy won, even though he had rants during it (the U.S. Open final):

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mfdIo38W40[/video]

My point isn't that ranting helps him, but the fact that he ranted during a loss isn't proof that the attitude caused the loss.

 

[Kieran]

Having sat courtside for every top ten player since 1981, and through countess Sampras practice sessions and matches, along all with the rest, it is a different level today. Sampras is the best server in the history of the game, bar none, great volleyer, mover, and running forehand. Still not as impressive as Murray in full flight...from my perspective.

I find that to be an absolutely non-credible statement... :nono

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Having sat courtside for every top ten player since 1981, and through countess Sampras practice sessions and matches, along all with the rest, it is a different level today. Sampras is the best server in the history of the game, bar none, great volleyer, mover, and running forehand. Still not as impressive as Murray in full flight...from my perspective.

I find that to be an absolutely non-credible statement... :nono

To each his own. How many times have you seen Sampras and Murray play in person?

 

[Kieran]

I've seen Pete twice. Have yet to see Murray.

Have seen them both play many times, often even in slow motion. Sometimes with graphics. Pete, believe it or not, in 7 Wimbledon finals.

I never heard anybody say Murray is greater than Pete. Or would beat him. I mean, what if there's nothing good on television that day? Would your Murray lose through negative thinking? :Lolz:

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I've seen Pete twice. Have yet to see Murray.

Have seen them both play many times, often even in slow motion. Sometimes with graphics. Pete, believe it or not, in 7 Wimbledon finals.

I never heard anybody say Murray is greater than Pete. Or would beat him. I mean, what if there's nothing good on television that day? Would your Murray lose through negative thinking? :Lolz:

LOL..ok, now that is funny. I will give you that one.

I am NOT trying to sound superior in any way, but I saw Sampras no less than 40 or 50 times in person strike the ball, and only once from the top, against Justin Gimelstob. No need to be courtside for that one. LOL.

I've seen murray around 50 times since he was 17, and as a matter of fact, at his first US Open match.

What still keeps me up at night is having seen Rafa playing, from 5 feet away sitting with my butt on the court, and watching his ball explode and his sheer athleticism. Yes, Pete, he iS a Beast.

I sat behind Sampras in 96, his prime, and watched him serve to Alex Coretja in a practice session. Scariest serving I have ever seen.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I don't quite get the premise of Fisher's observation. Andy Murray is a total package. He comes with his attitude. You cannot separate him from his attitude. For me it is almost like saying " we don't know how good Murray would be if he had a better second serve" . Attitude is as important as a second serve. So, we KNOW how good Murray can be: THIS is it. If he changes certain things in the future, then we will know how good THAT Murray can be too.

I bet to differ that Murray is the total package. He is forehand is several notches below Nadal, Feds, and Jokers. His second serve is sub par, and he wastes tons of energy with the chatting.

The proof, again, is in the pudding. He ranted and complained during his loss to baby fed, and federer, being supremely in control under high pressure, with better competition, wins dubai.

Anecdotal evidence.

Here is anecdotal evidence of a match Andy won, even though he had rants during it (the U.S. Open final):

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mfdIo38W40[/video]

My point isn't that ranting helps him, but the fact that he ranted during a loss isn't proof that the attitude caused the loss.

Cursing is not indicative of a bad attitude. Fisher mean MUCH more than that. I think that is clear. You can have a GREAT attitude and still be foul mouthed.

Fisher specifically said you can look at Federer and Nadal, and even Joker at any point in the match and you will have NO idea what the score is. Period. It is in the moment, problem solving.

 

[Kieran]

I'm glad you seen all those matches. I wish I'd seen Pete so many times. Murray? Can take it or leave it.

You're wrong to place Murray ahead of Pete, point blank....