Where were you when Murray was thrashed out of Wimbledon?

[Horney]

I remember where I was when Wilhelm Bungert beat Roger Taylor, and the 7 semi-finals we have lost since. You would think just by the law of averages...

I was at school for that Taylor semi-final ( circa 1967 ? )...He was expected to win. I got even more excited when he knocked out the great Rod Laver in 1970 and then lost in the semi..and then in 73, when all the top players boycotted, Taylor was a shoe-in to win the whole thing ( the British favourite lost in the semi to the eventual winner Kodes ! )
Then, nothing for nearly 25 years, until Henman arrived on the scene. With the help of some " draw massaging " by the seeding committee, he made 4 semi's...he was never going to beat Sampras but there is no question he blew his one chance in 2001...2 sets to 1 up against Ivanisovic ( 6-0 in the 3rd !!! )...he failed to regroup after a rain break and lost.
Murray may never get a better chance at Wimbledon..you have to grab the moment...Taylor blew it in 73, Henman in 2001...
Maybe the pressure is too much for them or are they just not quite good enough ?

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

I was in the departure lounge of faro airport,pleasanty surprised in how many others joined me in raising a cheer and a cold superbock when Roddick won :yahoo:

 

[Braders]

at work being texted the good news!!

 

[Flavor Flav]

On the way to prom.

 

[Trigger]

Watched it at work and LOVED IT!

 

[larus]

Every time Maurray has had a set-back, he's come back stronger.

OK, he had a bad day (I thought it wasn't so much the Roddick played so well, as Murray wasn't quite at his best), but he will learn from that.

I still stand by a statement I made on an earlier thread that Murray will be world No1 by the end of next year.

And as for saying that Roddick was better, it was predominately down to the serve. Also, to win by the odd few points on a tie-break ain't a thrashing.

 

[Spun Cuppa]

For me, from the four players in the semis, of which I watched both, Murray was the least effective...

He just didn't have the game compared to the other three, and yes, I do think he would have lost to Haas

 

[Il Duce]

Fighting my way to the front in Hyde Park for one of the best concerts I have ever been to. Still bruised but well worth it.

 

[dougdeep]

Driving home from work after yet another 13 hour day.

 

[Icy Gull]

I still stand by a statement I made on an earlier thread that Murray will be world No1 by the end of next year.
.

No chance, unless Federer and Nadal retire. He is nowhere near as good as those two when the Grand Slams come around and he's gonna need both underperforming or injured at the same time to have any chance of even winning one..imo.

I'm not a Murray fan but I was a bit disappointed in his serving and the number of Henmanesque type mishits he made when the pressure got to him in the semis, would have liked to have seen him win and get to the final.

I was at home watching the inevitable glorious defeat that we Brits excel at.

 

[Superphil]

Shows that you know little about tennis..He wasnt thrashed.
Came up against a guy who played a little better. Thats tennis.....its not a team sport. The odd serve, the odd volley, the odd forehand can change the course of a match. GUARANTEE that Murray will win more Grand Slams than Roddick.
There are some odd people here!

I, like millions watch tennis only once a year, Wimbledon and I make no effort to hide my lack of knowledge of tennis. Every year, just once for 2 weeks, millions of Brits watch Wimbledon, and the TV commentators explain the rules, the changes to the rules, Hawkeye, the Tie-break rules, because exactly what you said, we know very little about this game which is normally watched by very few in comparison to football, rugby and cricket. So when we watch a game like that we see the British entrant trying hard but apparently being run off the court, comprehensvly beaten in the statistics the TV company puts on screen to analyse (speed of serve, amount of aces, points won, forced errors etc) all of which mean vitrually nothing to us, but we are intelligent enough to work out who has done these things better, faster, more often etc, is playing better. And after all the hype of how great Murray was going to be and walk all over his opponent (don't recall his name) we are treated to a relatively exciting game in which "our boy" fails to win, and judging by the TV commentators we are told he has been well and truely beaten by an outstanding performance.

So for me, yes, I know that I know very little about tennis, but Murray was slaughtered in my eyes, and looks to me like faces a tough battle to to get to the top of this sport.

Good luck to him, I have got over the Paraguay thing now.

 

[BUTTERBALL]

In the Brighton Marina car park with the commentary on.