-
And Anderson wins - 6-1 in the 3rd - how cool is that?
I am glad I didn't give up on him even after the 2nd set. My players are winning tonight but with the exception of my heartthrob. Oh well... -
-
unbelievable emma:
Anderson ran wawrinka off the court in the decider. exact opposite of what I predicted.
then great south African shark has come to bite big at indian wells.
he is in the quarterfinals. -
-
Andy could have taken this title had he been in top form.
-
-
Anderson did everything more than Stan - he served more aces, more winners, more serves win first serve %, won more points etc. and he also had more double faults, more errors, more this more that etc. lol But a win is a win and he played masterfully in the 3rd. Stan's zone didn't last for long. It's hard to bounce back after a GS win I must admit.
-
-
I hope people are noticing the fact that Anderson is playing quite well (along with Gulbis) for some time now. It's so refreshing to see. I love these players. Such a nice break from the top guys.
-
-
I am not too worried for Muzz right now. He's only on his way to the top. Right now he's adjusting things and it's just a matter of time before he turns things around. You must hit rock bottom before you rise to the top again.
-
-
affirmative emma:
andy will hit his stride sooner or later. I am sure of it. he has the right man in his corner. Lendl.
I have always been a fan of Anderson ever since I watched one of his matches from las vegas years ago.
I think he has one of the best backhands on the planet. it is just a thing of beauty when it is on. -
-
That would be great. Andy can very well win the title, I think. Although he hasn't hit his stride fully, these last matches have re-ignited the fight in him. Champions usually rise to the occasion and Andy is well aware of Milos's strength. I think Andy will take it, because Andy is too crafty for Raonic. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Andy wins which signals that's he's getting back to his best.
To be honest, Andy is not the same kind of Champion as Federer or Nadal or even Nole is. Simply because he doesn't want to take his opponents seriously until he's pushed or if his opponents are those top guys. This attitude is pathetic in my opinion but what can you do. His opponents however, not named Federer, Nadal, Nole - are very excited to see him and play him, so they bring their very best, but he doesn't even care about that, whereas I really think he totally should. He should have more respects for his opponents. He should understand that these lesser ranked players are trying to learn from him too so this should be a very lovely experience as I see it.
And given that he's scheduled to play early today (the first match in fact) I am not sure how motivated he will be throughout the match to actually beat Raonic. He wants a big and loud crowd but if it's lukewarm then he's likely to struggle. I can't say that he doesn't like playing Raonic because I believe he does so that should bring up some lost fire in him, but that early match might set him off in the wrong direction. He won't be facing a very big crowd in the middle of the week and that early in the day. Andy doesn't like to create an atmosphere - he wants it to be created for him so that he can thrive in it. It's a bit of a lazy and yet shy attitude as I see it.
Anyway, to be more fair, I do think it's utterly ridiculous to set this big match so early in the day.
1. Very interesting insight, Emma. I never thought about it that way. I always looked at it as conserving energy for the later rounds.
2. Never thought about the crowd and how it might affect him, also interesting.
3. You were right. He seem as if he wasn't pumped up at all, or maybe he got tired. I had the sound off. -
-
Oh Emma, you crack me up. Those are the kinds of thoughts I have all the time. I can see myself noticing the age of the winners and then wondering how much they lost before they won too.
I guess we always question the whys and the motivations of things and you're right, so many people don't.
It reminds me of when I was younger and the things people would say about things like shopping, jewelry, etc., and I would be curious as to why they felt that way. I would say, why? And they'd look at like I was crazy, and they'd say because..., and I'd be like, because what? and then they'd say, just because..., and after awhile I figured that they couldn't explain why they liked or did a certain thing and I learned who you can talk to about things. Some people never check their motivations or wonder why they feel a certain way, while I can't stop thinking about the wonderful world of observations.
If a person asks me why I feel a certain way about something I can answer in great detail because it's based on my experiences, but throughout life I have met many people who cannot answer any questions regarding why they believe something is so. It's interesting.
I am just generally a very curious person and I am very much interested in the question 'why' rather than 'how'. When I was growing up I had all sorts of questions and I remember my parents would get really tired of my questions after a while and would tell me to leave it alone. But I would never until I got the answer. I have all sorts of curiosity, really. I even count the stairs I take just to see how many stairs there are. lolol
But that has also got me into all sorts of trouble, really since people, as you said, really don't want to answer 'why'. Sometimes, they are even offended. For example, when we were driving to the Niagara Falls, I noticed my friends GPS voice was a male voice so as usual I got curious and I asked why did she have a male voice when the default design is female. She totally reacted to that question and basically told me off. lolol but never answered the question why. My other friend at the backseat said that because she's female she probably likes to hear a male voice and that's why she changed it from female to male. Anyway, one thing led to another and I got really curious about why most computers' voice is initially set as a female voice (the default setting). My other 3 friends agreed because female voice is nicer and sexually more arousing to the male bunch and since we live in a male dominant society therefore, yaddi yaddi yadda stuff. I told them not to give a 'sexual twist' to every explanation there is without knowing for a fact. lolol because honestly, they were all making sweeping generalization to almost everything and everything had something to do with sex.
But of course I wasn't going to leave at that. lolol I came back, I googled it and it turns out it has nothing to do with sex. Yes, the male bunch love to hear a female voice but both men and women prefer the female voice because it sounds warm, friendly and caring (the fact that women are more nurturing by default as well) and not because it's arousing. Also, another very interesting research was, after the character Hal 3000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968, a male computer voice that takes over the space shuttle, left many with creepy feelings, so that was another factor to take into account when they installed the computer voice in most things. Mind you, technology only advanced this much after the 70s and before that we had no GPS, voice-mail and all other stuff that we use on a daily basis right now, so Hal 3000 did have a huge affect on general mass.
So anyway, by nature I am very curious and that's why I never really followed my religion or any other religion because I was more interested in the answer as to why I should be following anything than just go and do it. My biggest beef with science is that (and I love science), it never answers why but only answers how. And it never will because that too its default design. Ultimately it can never answer why. If you ask why there was a Big Bang to begin with, there's absolutely no answer to it even when there's sufficient data to provide that the Big Bang actually happened.
I'm naturally curious too, and even as young girl I couldn't follow my inherited religion because it didn't answer the question of why. I had to find my own path, because I am not comfortable with being led by others. Things have to line up with my own spirit. I'm not comfortable with science because it appears to be in a constant state of evolution, an unpeeling, if you will. They put information out there too quickly without knowing the full ramifications of an issue. Plus, it's too contradictory since it's based on theorems, and not fact. -
-
Not too surprised by Andy's loss really especially given what happened in the final set. Got broken twice back to back while leading the set. Technically Andy's serves are now his biggest liability. And the other biggest liability is his mentality.
Andy's serves started deteriorating right after the 2nd set. In the first set, his first serve was 77%; in the 2nd, 64 % (still good considering) but it then totally collapsed in the final set, 55% only. He was leading Raonic in the first two sets but dropped considerably in the 3rd. Raonic, on the other hand, continued to serve better and better and served highest percentage in the final set. So while Andy dropped his level, Raonic simply raised his.
Raonic hit 15 Aces with only 2 DFs while Andy served only 4 Aces with 3 DFs. Andy served 0 Aces in the final set and yet double faulted twice.
So in retrospect while Andy's game remained okay, his serves really let him down (on both 2nd and 3rd sets and it deteriorated only after a couple of sets). He's not going to win any title until and unless he takes his serves to a more consistent level. I said before the match that this would be the key problem and it was.
But in order for his serves to be really effective and consistent, he'd have to adjust his mentality first. This is no longer an injury issue or fitness issue or the level issued. Personally I don't think he'll be ready until the grass season where his motivation will automatically kick in and he'll start feeling confident once again.
I am not counting too much towards Miami at this point although the thought might cheer him up, somewhat.
I watched the first set and then I must of had to go and do something. I came back in the third set, and like you say, Andy looked unmotivated and out of sorts, to me. I didn't go back to see what happened, and although I am happy for Milos, I am not understanding what's going on with Andy.
Hopefully you're right about the grass season. -
-
1. Very interesting insight, Emma. I never thought about it that way. I always looked at it as conserving energy for the later rounds.
2. Never thought about the crowd and how it might affect him, also interesting.
3. You were right. He seem as if he wasn't pumped up at all, or maybe he got tired. I had the sound off.
I am not sure if you noticed but Sampras too had the same problem, not the big crowd but the opponents. His responses were very lukewarm against lower ranked players but when it came to players who were more of his league, he'd thrive on those challenges. But the difference is, his serves (both) were the most reliable weapon in his arsenal, so he really didn't need to worry about losing to these lesser ranked players in his prime. Andy does not have that luxury - especially not against big servers like Raonic, Isner etc. and anyone who has more consistent serves than his. So Andy really needs to think about what he can truly afford. Deep down inside he knows that he is rich enough to live rest of his life comfortably so this is surely not a do or die situation for him. It's disappointing and that's all there is, for him anyway. I am sure he got over the loss already.
Nadal, Federer, Nole aren't that way. They take each of their opponent very seriously and like to show off a lot by beating them quite easily. They are always busy showing that they are the masters of the game to the lower ranked players. They are also very focused. Nole does have a slight tendency to get a bit unmindful during a match, but both Federer and Nadal are extremely focused. And if they still lose it, it would be because they are not feeling as confident as they typically do due to injuries or bad losses etc. but almost never because they didn't take their opponents seriously. Nole is very focuses most of the time. He has the tendency to get a bit nervous when he faces a worthy opponent but his lack of concentration is almost never the reason for losing.
As to the crowd, Andy's slightly spoiled in this regard. A good or bad (who's cheering against him or cheering more for his opponent) crowd tend to bring out the best in him. I do think it has everything to do with him being British. Personally I think he'd have been far more successful if he had been an American. First of all, he would have gotten less attention from the media; 2nd, he would have been far more open and relaxed and would have had a much firmer goal as he wouldn't have then had the pressure of breaking the 77 year old drought. Also, had he been an American he would have been more encouraged by the likes of Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Courier, Connors etc. and would have had a different sets of goals. Plus, the Americans tend to support their players without any condition so that would have had a positive reflect on him.
Andy is a very talented and skillful player. He's also very athletic and gifted. It would be a crying shame if he didn't maximize all his potentiality to actuality. -
-
I watched the first set and then I must of had to go and do something. I came back in the third set, and like you say, Andy looked unmotivated and out of sorts, to me. I didn't go back to see what happened, and although I am happy for Milos, I am not understanding what's going on with Andy.
Hopefully you're right about the grass season.
I haven't finished watching the match yet especially the 3rd set where everything seemed to have gone wrong. My sister saw the entire match and she later told me that it looked as if Andy couldn't be bothered with it much. She didn't think Andy was giving his all and fighting back to at least hold his serve. And she's not as big a fan as I but you can see the things she had noticed in yesterday's match. Speaks volume about Andy's current mentality, really.
I do firmly believe Andy's suffering mentally right now. Now that all the goals that he had got done be it winning his first Slam or winning Wimbledon or winning the Olympics, he's finding it mentally hard to set a new goal that would surpass all those. I don't think he feels he can break either Federer, Sampras' records so that's definitely not his goal. So that really leaves Wimbledon. I do think he wants to win as much as possible there and that's why I believe he'll pick it up mentally by that time Queens is around. I do think he's also interested in the other Slams. But probably not so much in these Masters or smaller tournaments. Let's see how the clay season pans out for him. That should motivate him at least a little. -
-
I believe Mr. Murray, OBE, has maximized his skills winning the Olympics at Wimbledon, the US Open and the Wimbledon Championships the following year.
Wimbledon Champ
US Open Star
Every dog has his/her day
I think he has attained his biggest goals. Everything else is gravy now for him. Does he really need to have the relentless drive to win more and more? Only a few players in history had that mindset. I think what he does the rest of his career will depend on how well he feels physically and how much ambition he has left to do more than he already has.
If he retired today, I think he would be a happy man. All he would need is a good woman by his side (or maybe two if you include his mother). Kim Sears seems to be the front runner in that regard.
Mum and Chum
I could see Andy and Kim traveling around the world, running a tennis academy, or even a hotel, as long as they do it together.
Casual Elegance
Mr. Andrew Barron Murray, OBE, Miss Kim Sears
Respectfully,
masterclass -
-
I'm naturally curious too, and even as young girl I couldn't follow my inherited religion because it didn't answer the question of why. I had to find my own path, because I am not comfortable with being led by others. Things have to line up with my own spirit. I'm not comfortable with science because it appears to be in a constant state of evolution, an unpeeling, if you will. They put information out there too quickly without knowing the full ramifications of an issue. Plus, it's too contradictory since it's based on theorems, and not fact.
Science is indeed in constant state of evolution. It has to be that way because they only discover parts of the whole thing and that's not correct most of the times, since we are assuming a lot based on those particular parts. Newtonian science is no longer valid and was replaced by Einstein's modern science in the early 1900s. Darwin's theory of evaluation is now pure hogwash. Not only it lacks fossil data to support the theory and not at all consistent, but it also isn't aware of the quantum jump of the nature as it believes in pure slow and steady evaluation of nature. The new science Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics are really the new science and a very different kind of science as it does not focus at the macro level but rather the micro level of objects and it defies all pre-existing theories. In fact, it's so wild that most people don't understand it at all.
But Science is not all bad or even just theories. For example, we do know that the earth is round (not flat) and the sun moves on one specific direction and for that reason, it will always rise on the east for us. The Earth is not the centre of our Galaxy. It is again the Sun. In fact, most of our every day thing is based on Science - be it time, space, transportation, flights, phones, computers, internet and million other things. We, in fact, live a very scientific life than anything else. And Science can't just jump to conclusions - it must have a theory first in order to make it a fact later. People used to think the moon has its own light but it was science that dismissed that and established the fact that the moon gets its light from the sun as it does not have its own. So theories in Science are a must and nothing wrong with that. It's true however that they will be dismissing some or a lot of their theories later when they become more and more aware of things. The things at the fundamental level never change; what changes is really our perception of things and the level of awareness. I don't mind science, quite fond of it in fact as it, among other things, also offers lots of varieties. Plus, it makes life so much easier.
I love religion a lot too as it offers so much and the very attractive mystic side of it but I am never into just one religion. I am also not at all into organized religion but I love the teachings of Buddha, Jesus, Prophet Muhammad, the Sufis, teachings of Vedanta, Sages etc. These are all very spiritually advanced people and teachings.
Science is the product of the mind of course based on the left brain whereas all these people mentioned above are all spiritual and all their teachings are based on the right brain which are very creative and derived from the divine intelligence. All the artists, actors, writers, athletes are the products of the right brain. Even Einstein had to rely a lot on his right brain to come up with some of the wildest theories.
But anyway, any way you look at it, it all feels very intriguing. I love it - be it spiritual or religion or science. -
-
Well, that's nice MC but I am sure there's still a lot left in Andy. He can reach to No. 1 - a feat yet to be achieved by him. Also, he can try and win as many Slams as possible. And one more Masters and he ties with Samrpas but he can definitely set a goal to win a few more and surpass a few there. Win a few small titles here and there. If anything he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Let's see that God mode for a while, Andy 2.0 - a very consistent and determined Murray. No more roller coasters but just a pure joy ride for a while. It is left unknown and it can happen.
-