***The Official Wimbledon Final Thread***

[CaptainAmerica18 846]

Worth noting that all the top 3 won their first Grand Slams against opponents of a much lower standard than Murray has faced in his finals?

Nadal beat Mariano Puerta, Djokovic beat (an unexposed) Tsonga and Federer beat Phillipoussis (sp?). I've no doubt Murray's Slam title will come. He is getting better and even winning a set will be a huge relief considering his straight set defeats in his previous 3 finals.

[Clemdog 39,389]

that is clear bullshit,he lost cause he wasnt good enough,anycunt with half a brain could see that

How is it clear bullshit? If it wasn't for one point he would have been a service game away from being two sets to love up against Federer.

Federer got lucky in that second set which ruined Murray. He never lifted his head after that and went into defensive mode.

To say he wasn't good enough is in an injustice to the boy.

[CaptainAmerica18 846]

that is clear bullshit,he lost cause he wasnt good enough,anycunt with half a brain could see that

Murray is as technically gifted as Nadal and Djokovic but has a mental block in Grand Slam finals. The fact he's beaten them and Federer in 500 and Masters series finals would suggest that. Anybody "with half a brain" could see that.

[gazza27 15,422]

How is it clear bullshit? If it wasn't for one point he would have been a service game away from being two sets to love up against Federer.

Federer got lucky in that second set which ruined Murray. He never lifted his head after that and went into defensive mode.

To say he wasn't good enough is in an injustice to the boy.

lol

he'll never be good enough aslong as the big 3 are about as he cant beat them in slams.yes hes beat them in the other ones but when it comes to the big 4 he aint got it,that is a fact and today proved it.you go on about that point.if that was one of the big 3 they wouldnt worry about it,they would have knuckled down and won,murray cant

[gazza27 15,422]

Murray is as technically gifted as Nadal and Djokovic but has a mental block in Grand Slam finals. The fact he's beaten them and Federer in 500 and Masters series finals would suggest that. Anybody "with half a brain" could see that.

not good enough,simple

[Skol 401]

Andy Murray: not miserable, just normal

So what if he never smiles? Can't he just play tennis without having to pull a happy face for you?

Congratulations to Andy Murray, who either did or didn't win Wimbledon this afternoon. Since I'm writing this almost immediately before the match itself kicks off, I've got no way of knowing what the outcome was. Is. Will be. Whatever.

I think I can safely predict one thing, though: whatever happens, win or lose, in the post-game interview, he won't do a double thumbs-up, gurn joyously down the lens, waggle his tongue around like Gazza, then moonwalk off, waving, grinning, and making comedy trombone noises. That's not the Andy Murray we know and sort of love.

People say Murray's miserable because he doesn't smile very often. He's not miserable. He's normal. Have you walked down a street recently? Any street in the country? Go on, pick one. Take a stroll. Bring a notepad. Make a note each time you spot someone walking around beaming like they just taught their dog to shit money. Chances are you'll cross six postcodes before you glimpse so much as a smirk. Which isn't to say people are inherently unhappy. Just that they've got better things to do with their faces than walking around bending their mouths up like idiots.

The people who want Murray to smile are the same ones who try to make me dance at weddings. They want the world to conspicuously enjoy itself in a manner of their choosing, and they turn vaguely sanctimonious when they encounter pockets of resistance, as though their definition of fun is the only one that matters.

So Murray isn't going to win the Merryville Festival of Grins any time soon. What difference does it make to you, you needy pricks? Can't he just play tennis without having to turn around after each point and pull a happy face just for you, like he's your dad watering plants in the garden and you're a toddler watching him through the kitchen window? What do you want, a tennis champion or Mister Tumble? Make your mind up, because you're not getting both.

Perhaps part of the confusion is that despite being very much in the public eye, Murray refuses to play along with the patronising emotionalism demanded by the media, where sporting stars are expected to put on showy displays of "passion" that look good in a highlights package at the end of the show. If you're not a natural cartwheels-of-victory type, it must be a pain in the arse to know everyone's expectantly gauging your reaction. You know how when you're opening a birthday present in front of a crowd, all your brain can do is scream: "FOR GOD'S SAKE LOOK DELIGHTED!" at you? Multiply that by ten million. I'd say Murray's ability to ignore this pressure is almost more impressive than his racquet skills.

Moments after beating Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the semi-final, Murray was interviewed by the BBC's Garry Richardson, who found himself repeatedly trying to squeeze some kind of rousing sentiment from a man intent on describing the game in technical terms, like a straight-faced IT consultant explaining how he fixed a problem with the server.

After trying and failing to get him to describe the match as a rollercoaster of emotions, Richardson brought up Murray's mum and dad, who'd been sitting in the audience. "What can it possibly have been like, Andy, for your parents watching there?" he asked, presumably hoping to prompt a moment of choked-up pride. Murray handed him a cold stone in return.

"I've no idea," he replied, deadpan. "I'm not really that bothered. It's a lot harder for me, that's for sure." And there was a glimmer of a dark smirk at the end, the kind that doesn't register in a world in which all emotions must be expressible as emoticons and interior happiness is required to be rendered visible from a range of 200 metres.

That's precisely the kind of sporting hero we need. One who's allergic to bullshit and treats the whole thing like a job that rather than a tear-jerked spiritual calling. He seems to want to ignore the media. Trouble is, he's so bloody good at tennis, the media can't ignore him. But like a bluebottle repeatedly bashing its face against a windowpane, it continually tries and fails to turn him into yet another easily digested celebrity. "Celebrity" is increasingly the only role the media can process, yet it's a role in which Murray looks about as comfortable as a dog on rollerblades.

In the run-up to the Wimbledon final (which, at the risk of repeating myself, hasn't happened at the time of writing), press and broadcasters alike routinely described Murray as some kind of symbolic vessel containing all British hope. All our dreams, all our aspirations – all on his shoulders, apparently. Poor fucker.

The strong implication was that if he won, it'd solve all our national neuroses at a stroke: like England won Euro 2012, like Barclays behaved, like Diana never died. We'd be commanded to stand outside collectively waving union flags as though trying to attract the attention of some huge intergalactic queen bee hovering somewhere above the atmosphere. But if, on the other hand, he lost we'd either tut and say it's typical – because we're allowed to be grouchy, but the people we pointlessly entrust with our sense of national self-worth aren't – or, more likely, be expected to sit soggy-eyed watching a slow-motion montage of his disappointed face, cut to something mournful-but-unthreatening with a hint of Coldplay about it. Because if he won't supply the emotion, goddamit, we'll make the soundtrack do it on his behalf.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/08/andy-murray-not-miserable-just-normal

Charlie Brooker telling it like it is

[Clemdog 39,389]

lol

he'll never be good enough aslong as the big 3 are about as he cant beat them in slams.yes hes beat them in the other ones but when it comes to the big 4 he aint got it,that is a fact and today proved it.you go on about that point.if that was one of the big 3 they wouldnt worry about it,they would have knuckled down and won,murray cant

He was better than Federer today for two sets. That is a fact.

We have different opinions on why he hasn't won a Slam. Let's end it there.

[gazza27 15,422]

He was better than Federer today for two sets. That is a fact.

We have different opinions on why he hasn't won a Slam. Let's end it there.

[Yoghurto 9]

Worth noting that all the top 3 won their first Grand Slams against opponents of a much lower standard than Murray has faced in his finals?

Nadal beat Mariano Puerta, Djokovic beat (an unexposed) Tsonga and Federer beat Phillipoussis (sp?). I've no doubt Murray's Slam title will come. He is getting better and even winning a set will be a huge relief considering his straight set defeats in his previous 3 finals.

Both Nadal and Djokovic knocked out Federer in the semis on their way to their first slam. So while the point about finals stands, they still had to go through the main guy to get there.

[Blue Atheist 184]

Very good speech at the end from Andy.

Not often i get a tear in my eye watching tennis.

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,087]

He was better than Federer today for two sets. That is a fact.

We have different opinions on why he hasn't won a Slam. Let's end it there.

no he wasnt, he was better in 1 set out of 4, the first set, wether it is physical or mental only Murray can tell, but the fact is he died a death for the 2nd match in a row,

[Clemdog 39,389]

no he wasnt, he was better in 1 set out of 4, the first set, wether it is physical or mental only Murray can tell, but the fact is he died a death for the 2nd match in a row,

Only someone who didn't watch the match would deny he wasn't better in the second.

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,087]

Only someone who didn't watch the match would deny he wasn't better in the second.

if he was better how did he lose it?

[caseyjones 3,009]

no he wasnt, he was better in 1 set out of 4, the first set, wether it is physical or mental only Murray can tell, but the fact is he died a death for the 2nd match in a row,

How could he have died a death when he beat Tsonga? You've quite obviously got a thing about Murray, but why not give credit where it's due?

[Clemdog 39,389]

if he was better how did he lose it?

Because Federer had an advantage serving first in the Set and got lucky with a few points.

[Clemdog 39,389]

How could he have died a death when he beat Tsonga? You've quite obviously got a thing about Murray, but why not give credit where it's due?

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,087]

How could he have died a death when he beat Tsonga? You've quite obviously got a thing about Murray, but why not give credit where it's due?

he beat tsonga because tsonga made an arse of it while he had murray on the ropes

In the semi final murray burst a gut to pummel the bigman into the ground for the first 2 sets, then suddenly died a death and allowed tsona to get into it, but tsonga isnt good enough to take full advantage of it

I have nothing against Murray, i think he's unlucky to be in this generation of great tennis players, but i also think he could learn a thing or two from their games, Murray has a knack of going for everything, even if he doesnt have a chance of a return, the top players know when they are beat in a point and simply leave it.

Even the fittest person in the world still doesnt have 100% fitness after 3 hours of high paced tennis, watching both the semi final and the final its clear that Murrays shots are less effective as the match goes on

Whereas the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer can still produce magnificent tennis after 3-4 hours

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,087]

Because Federer had an advantage serving first in the Set and got lucky with a few points.

lucky with a few points doesnt win a set

[Clemdog 39,389]

lucky with a few points doesnt win a set

Did you watch this match?

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,087]

Did you watch this match?

yes, i saw murray give federer a doing in the first set, looked like he was gonna do it a second time then allowed federer back into it for whatever reason, after it went to 1-1 Murray looked beaten already

The opinion i am saying is that Murrays games he struggles to keep a level of consistency throughout, especially on show against the big guns, whereas today federer started poorly (Murray's blistering start probably caught him off guard) but got better and better to the point where he was winning games and sets without too much trouble.

And i think that is down to Murray simply not being able to choose when to chase something and when something is a lost cause

[Yoghurto 9]

Only someone who didn't watch the match would deny he wasn't better in the second.

He was better in the second, but I didn't feel like he was better in the first actually. Quite the opposite, felt Fed was better from 0-2 down up until Murray broke, had chances to break right before that himself.

[PaddockLoyal 105]

I for one would like to congratulate the Scotsman Andy Murray on becoming the first ever Scottish Wimbledon runner-up, Scotland can be proud of the young Scot.

[Clemdog 39,389]

yes, i saw murray give federer a doing in the first set, looked like he was gonna do it a second time then allowed federer back into it for whatever reason, after it went to 1-1 Murray looked beaten already

The opinion i am saying is that Murrays games he struggles to keep a level of consistency throughout, especially on show against the big guns, whereas today federer started poorly (Murray's blistering start probably caught him off guard) but got better and better to the point where he was winning games and sets without too much trouble.

And i think that is down to Murray simply not being able to choose when to chase something and when something is a lost cause

Murray played better than Federer in the second set. Like I said Federer got lucky with a few points and was serving first so had that advantage. It was a close match, a very close match but what it came down to was mental strength and a few other variables. Roger has been there six times before, if you're telling me that doesn't count for something mentally, then you're wrong.

I'd say Federer really struggled with his consistency today as well, he may have made more winners be also made more unforced errors and double faults.

I honestly can't believe the reason Murray lost today was down to his fitness. I'm sorry but I can't Jim.

[the goal machine 7,826]

Murray lost because he's not as good as Federer. When Federer gained the ascendancy in the match, it was clear that Murray had nothing left for him. He started getting frustrated and his first serve went to shit and he started making unforced errors that he wasn't making earlier in the match.

His problems aren't physical, although it has to be a concern that Murray started so well and faded so badly. I think he will win a Grand Slam eventually but I've been saying it for a while. He needs to do it sooner rather than later.

[Clemdog 39,389]

Murray lost because he's not as good as Federer. When Federer gained the ascendancy in the match, it was clear that Murray had nothing left for him. He started getting frustrated and his first serve went to shit and he started making unforced errors that he wasn't making earlier in the set.

His problems aren't physical, although it has to be a concern that Murray started so well and faded so badly. I think he will win a Grand Slam eventually but I've been saying it for a while. He needs to do it sooner rather than later.

I think Murray played a good game. But in the end was beaten by himself.