Andy Murray currently in big trouble. Two sets down to 120th ranked Daniel Taro. This was supposed to be an easy match for him.
Emma Raducanu also in action at the minute, about to lose the first set to Kovinic Danka. She is sure to win the second set if she loses here so if you're a betting man then you know what to do.
Schwartzman and Dimitrov massive casualties in this morning's action getting knocked out by O'Connell and Benoit Paire respectively.
Muguruza and Kontaveit also shown the exit by Alize Cornet and teenage sensation Clara Tauson respectively.
Been twists and turns all week. Big players getting swatted aside like flies. Can Murray pull it back?
Who will win? We have men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles and mixed doubles
Will it be one of the old guard or are the fresh young ones establishing a new era?
Australian Open Live
posted on 20/1/22
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Murray's been really unlucky to be around during the Fed, Nadal, Djoko years. For a long while he was close to that level and would've collected a lot more slams under normal circumstances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate hope you don't take this the wrong way.
This line of thinking gives me a giggle.
Murray is a great because he won Wimbledon with these guys not despite these guys.
To be the best you have to beat the best. In an era of great players not if you're half decent but everyone else is just rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's great he did manage to get a couple during that time but it's still unlucky for him overall. He won't ever get talked about as an all time great, had he been around during another (less impressive) era who knows
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is an all time great for me because he won during that era. I look at, for example, boxing and think it's a travesty the likes of Joshua are seen as big names. Or even worse chisora.
I think Andy's biggest problem is he wasn't English. If he was he would have statues outside Wimbledon by now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's probably true about being Scottish rather than English. Even so, most fair weather Tennis fans will never see him as an all time great, even if his overall standard was that high (again I'm not saying it is or isn't, just his timing was unlucky)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree he has been unlucky in terms of timing, and in another era he might have as many titles as a Becker or even an Agassi. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling him an all time great though when he only has 3 majors. There is obviously a clear gap between the likes of him and Federer, Djok and Nadal. If he is an ATG what are they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't see him as an all time great because he simply doesn't have the slam success but wouldn't hold it against anyone who disagreed because there's some fair arguments both ways. In another era he could well have taken a lot more and there wouldn't even be a debate that he was.
Djoko, Nadal and Fed are just ridiculously good, the fact Murray was ranked number 1 for almost a year while these guys were playing and was in the top 10 for almost a decade is testament to his quality.
But 3 slams is miles down the pecking sadly.
posted on 20/1/22
Realisitically murray just hasn't got what it takes to play this in the heat and having already sapped all fitness with a 5 setter. It proved easy meat for the qualifier
The one tournament woner and BBC "face" of the year award winner actually proved me wrong by getting past first round. A 2nd round exist is about the best possible result for all as she might finally realise what being a pro is about and get a proper coach and start actually working at it.
roll on the real tournament.
posted on 20/1/22
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Murray's been really unlucky to be around during the Fed, Nadal, Djoko years. For a long while he was close to that level and would've collected a lot more slams under normal circumstances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate hope you don't take this the wrong way.
This line of thinking gives me a giggle.
Murray is a great because he won Wimbledon with these guys not despite these guys.
To be the best you have to beat the best. In an era of great players not if you're half decent but everyone else is just rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's great he did manage to get a couple during that time but it's still unlucky for him overall. He won't ever get talked about as an all time great, had he been around during another (less impressive) era who knows
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is an all time great for me because he won during that era. I look at, for example, boxing and think it's a travesty the likes of Joshua are seen as big names. Or even worse chisora.
I think Andy's biggest problem is he wasn't English. If he was he would have statues outside Wimbledon by now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's probably true about being Scottish rather than English. Even so, most fair weather Tennis fans will never see him as an all time great, even if his overall standard was that high (again I'm not saying it is or isn't, just his timing was unlucky)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree he has been unlucky in terms of timing, and in another era he might have as many titles as a Becker or even an Agassi. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling him an all time great though when he only has 3 majors. There is obviously a clear gap between the likes of him and Federer, Djok and Nadal. If he is an ATG what are they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't see him as an all time great because he simply doesn't have the slam success but wouldn't hold it against anyone who disagreed because there's some fair arguments both ways. In another era he could well have taken a lot more and there wouldn't even be a debate that he was.
Djoko, Nadal and Fed are just ridiculously good, the fact Murray was ranked number 1 for almost a year while these guys were playing and was in the top 10 for almost a decade is testament to his quality.
But 3 slams is miles down the pecking sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question he is the 4th best of the toughest era in tennis. Not sure how many finals he has reached in total but I'm sure all the ones he lost were to a Djok, Fed or Nadal, and then there would be more SF and QF he'd have lost to them, so without those guys he could have over 10 slams.
I suppose because those 3 are so far ahead of everyone else in the game, they almost have to have their own category of greatness. To call anyone else an "all time great" means that trio have to be described with a better superlative.
posted on 20/1/22
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Murray's been really unlucky to be around during the Fed, Nadal, Djoko years. For a long while he was close to that level and would've collected a lot more slams under normal circumstances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate hope you don't take this the wrong way.
This line of thinking gives me a giggle.
Murray is a great because he won Wimbledon with these guys not despite these guys.
To be the best you have to beat the best. In an era of great players not if you're half decent but everyone else is just rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's great he did manage to get a couple during that time but it's still unlucky for him overall. He won't ever get talked about as an all time great, had he been around during another (less impressive) era who knows
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is an all time great for me because he won during that era. I look at, for example, boxing and think it's a travesty the likes of Joshua are seen as big names. Or even worse chisora.
I think Andy's biggest problem is he wasn't English. If he was he would have statues outside Wimbledon by now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's probably true about being Scottish rather than English. Even so, most fair weather Tennis fans will never see him as an all time great, even if his overall standard was that high (again I'm not saying it is or isn't, just his timing was unlucky)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree he has been unlucky in terms of timing, and in another era he might have as many titles as a Becker or even an Agassi. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling him an all time great though when he only has 3 majors. There is obviously a clear gap between the likes of him and Federer, Djok and Nadal. If he is an ATG what are they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't see him as an all time great because he simply doesn't have the slam success but wouldn't hold it against anyone who disagreed because there's some fair arguments both ways. In another era he could well have taken a lot more and there wouldn't even be a debate that he was.
Djoko, Nadal and Fed are just ridiculously good, the fact Murray was ranked number 1 for almost a year while these guys were playing and was in the top 10 for almost a decade is testament to his quality.
But 3 slams is miles down the pecking sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question he is the 4th best of the toughest era in tennis. Not sure how many finals he has reached in total but I'm sure all the ones he lost were to a Djok, Fed or Nadal, and then there would be more SF and QF he'd have lost to them, so without those guys he could have over 10 slams.
I suppose because those 3 are so far ahead of everyone else in the game, they almost have to have their own category of greatness. To call anyone else an "all time great" means that trio have to be described with a better superlative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All fair points.
I think my issue is mainly with the unlucky part in the sense that I've always appreciated players who come good when there is great rivalries/competition.
That's not to say I disagree with the general gist of another time another era.
I also think rivalries make and break greats. Murray is a great if only from a "British great" sense. For me anyway.
posted on 20/1/22
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
Realisitically murray just hasn't got what it takes to play this in the heat and having already sapped all fitness with a 5 setter. It proved easy meat for the qualifier
The one tournament woner and BBC "face" of the year award winner actually proved me wrong by getting past first round. A 2nd round exist is about the best possible result for all as she might finally realise what being a pro is about and get a proper coach and start actually working at it.
roll on the real tournament.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Dan Evans part of the "real" tournament then?
posted on 20/1/22
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Murray's been really unlucky to be around during the Fed, Nadal, Djoko years. For a long while he was close to that level and would've collected a lot more slams under normal circumstances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate hope you don't take this the wrong way.
This line of thinking gives me a giggle.
Murray is a great because he won Wimbledon with these guys not despite these guys.
To be the best you have to beat the best. In an era of great players not if you're half decent but everyone else is just rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's great he did manage to get a couple during that time but it's still unlucky for him overall. He won't ever get talked about as an all time great, had he been around during another (less impressive) era who knows
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is an all time great for me because he won during that era. I look at, for example, boxing and think it's a travesty the likes of Joshua are seen as big names. Or even worse chisora.
I think Andy's biggest problem is he wasn't English. If he was he would have statues outside Wimbledon by now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's probably true about being Scottish rather than English. Even so, most fair weather Tennis fans will never see him as an all time great, even if his overall standard was that high (again I'm not saying it is or isn't, just his timing was unlucky)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree he has been unlucky in terms of timing, and in another era he might have as many titles as a Becker or even an Agassi. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling him an all time great though when he only has 3 majors. There is obviously a clear gap between the likes of him and Federer, Djok and Nadal. If he is an ATG what are they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't see him as an all time great because he simply doesn't have the slam success but wouldn't hold it against anyone who disagreed because there's some fair arguments both ways. In another era he could well have taken a lot more and there wouldn't even be a debate that he was.
Djoko, Nadal and Fed are just ridiculously good, the fact Murray was ranked number 1 for almost a year while these guys were playing and was in the top 10 for almost a decade is testament to his quality.
But 3 slams is miles down the pecking sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question he is the 4th best of the toughest era in tennis. Not sure how many finals he has reached in total but I'm sure all the ones he lost were to a Djok, Fed or Nadal, and then there would be more SF and QF he'd have lost to them, so without those guys he could have over 10 slams.
I suppose because those 3 are so far ahead of everyone else in the game, they almost have to have their own category of greatness. To call anyone else an "all time great" means that trio have to be described with a better superlative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All fair points.
I think my issue is mainly with the unlucky part in the sense that I've always appreciated players who come good when there is great rivalries/competition.
That's not to say I disagree with the general gist of another time another era.
I also think rivalries make and break greats. Murray is a great if only from a "British great" sense. For me anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no argument he is a British great. Along with Fred Perry he is the best. One of our best sportsmen too.
posted on 20/1/22
comment by Kroenke_out (U21076)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
Realisitically murray just hasn't got what it takes to play this in the heat and having already sapped all fitness with a 5 setter. It proved easy meat for the qualifier
The one tournament woner and BBC "face" of the year award winner actually proved me wrong by getting past first round. A 2nd round exist is about the best possible result for all as she might finally realise what being a pro is about and get a proper coach and start actually working at it.
roll on the real tournament.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Dan Evans part of the "real" tournament then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the lads still in, he's no real chance but he's trying his best so yeah.
I just think murray is mad to be blowing his old age and health on chasing a small ball round given what he's had to do.
posted on 20/1/22
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Murray's been really unlucky to be around during the Fed, Nadal, Djoko years. For a long while he was close to that level and would've collected a lot more slams under normal circumstances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate hope you don't take this the wrong way.
This line of thinking gives me a giggle.
Murray is a great because he won Wimbledon with these guys not despite these guys.
To be the best you have to beat the best. In an era of great players not if you're half decent but everyone else is just rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's great he did manage to get a couple during that time but it's still unlucky for him overall. He won't ever get talked about as an all time great, had he been around during another (less impressive) era who knows
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is an all time great for me because he won during that era. I look at, for example, boxing and think it's a travesty the likes of Joshua are seen as big names. Or even worse chisora.
I think Andy's biggest problem is he wasn't English. If he was he would have statues outside Wimbledon by now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's probably true about being Scottish rather than English. Even so, most fair weather Tennis fans will never see him as an all time great, even if his overall standard was that high (again I'm not saying it is or isn't, just his timing was unlucky)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree he has been unlucky in terms of timing, and in another era he might have as many titles as a Becker or even an Agassi. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling him an all time great though when he only has 3 majors. There is obviously a clear gap between the likes of him and Federer, Djok and Nadal. If he is an ATG what are they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't see him as an all time great because he simply doesn't have the slam success but wouldn't hold it against anyone who disagreed because there's some fair arguments both ways. In another era he could well have taken a lot more and there wouldn't even be a debate that he was.
Djoko, Nadal and Fed are just ridiculously good, the fact Murray was ranked number 1 for almost a year while these guys were playing and was in the top 10 for almost a decade is testament to his quality.
But 3 slams is miles down the pecking sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question he is the 4th best of the toughest era in tennis. Not sure how many finals he has reached in total but I'm sure all the ones he lost were to a Djok, Fed or Nadal, and then there would be more SF and QF he'd have lost to them, so without those guys he could have over 10 slams.
I suppose because those 3 are so far ahead of everyone else in the game, they almost have to have their own category of greatness. To call anyone else an "all time great" means that trio have to be described with a better superlative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All fair points.
I think my issue is mainly with the unlucky part in the sense that I've always appreciated players who come good when there is great rivalries/competition.
That's not to say I disagree with the general gist of another time another era.
I also think rivalries make and break greats. Murray is a great if only from a "British great" sense. For me anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no argument he is a British great. Along with Fred Perry he is the best. One of our best sportsmen too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolutely, have to agree. ok in the grand scheme theres 4 or 5 who've won masses of slams but to win 3 is really good and add in Olympics too. in the grand scheme thats ace.
posted on 20/1/22
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Miyagi doh 😣 (U19849)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 6 minutes ago
Murray's been really unlucky to be around during the Fed, Nadal, Djoko years. For a long while he was close to that level and would've collected a lot more slams under normal circumstances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate hope you don't take this the wrong way.
This line of thinking gives me a giggle.
Murray is a great because he won Wimbledon with these guys not despite these guys.
To be the best you have to beat the best. In an era of great players not if you're half decent but everyone else is just rubbish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's great he did manage to get a couple during that time but it's still unlucky for him overall. He won't ever get talked about as an all time great, had he been around during another (less impressive) era who knows
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is an all time great for me because he won during that era. I look at, for example, boxing and think it's a travesty the likes of Joshua are seen as big names. Or even worse chisora.
I think Andy's biggest problem is he wasn't English. If he was he would have statues outside Wimbledon by now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's probably true about being Scottish rather than English. Even so, most fair weather Tennis fans will never see him as an all time great, even if his overall standard was that high (again I'm not saying it is or isn't, just his timing was unlucky)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree he has been unlucky in terms of timing, and in another era he might have as many titles as a Becker or even an Agassi. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling him an all time great though when he only has 3 majors. There is obviously a clear gap between the likes of him and Federer, Djok and Nadal. If he is an ATG what are they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally don't see him as an all time great because he simply doesn't have the slam success but wouldn't hold it against anyone who disagreed because there's some fair arguments both ways. In another era he could well have taken a lot more and there wouldn't even be a debate that he was.
Djoko, Nadal and Fed are just ridiculously good, the fact Murray was ranked number 1 for almost a year while these guys were playing and was in the top 10 for almost a decade is testament to his quality.
But 3 slams is miles down the pecking sadly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question he is the 4th best of the toughest era in tennis. Not sure how many finals he has reached in total but I'm sure all the ones he lost were to a Djok, Fed or Nadal, and then there would be more SF and QF he'd have lost to them, so without those guys he could have over 10 slams.
I suppose because those 3 are so far ahead of everyone else in the game, they almost have to have their own category of greatness. To call anyone else an "all time great" means that trio have to be described with a better superlative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All fair points.
I think my issue is mainly with the unlucky part in the sense that I've always appreciated players who come good when there is great rivalries/competition.
That's not to say I disagree with the general gist of another time another era.
I also think rivalries make and break greats. Murray is a great if only from a "British great" sense. For me anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no argument he is a British great. Along with Fred Perry he is the best. One of our best sportsmen too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
absolutely, have to agree. ok in the grand scheme theres 4 or 5 who've won masses of slams but to win 3 is really good and add in Olympics too. in the grand scheme thats ace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus a Davis cup as well.
posted on 20/1/22
I can't wait for the mens semis to come.