In Praise Of Andy Murray… And His ‘Attitude’
February 1st, 2010 | This post was written by David SkeltonAndy Murray is, almost without doubt, the best British tennis player since Fred Perry. Sadly, he is not getting the credit he deserves from too many people.
I was amazed at how many people said to me last week that they were rooting for his opponents because they didn’t like Murray and his so-called “attitude”. Clearly, people would prefer their tennis players to be fresh faced, “well-spoken” embodiments of middle England than sportsmen with a relentless focus on winning. There is a reason why he has already achieved so much more than people like Jeremy Bates or Tim Henman.
We have a choice to make. We can either expect our sportsmen to be dedicated winners, with a real eye on constant self improvement or we can expect them to have a “nice attitude.”
The Australian cricket team; Mohammed Ali; McEnroe; Phil Taylor and Eric Bristow; Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus… The list could go on and on. But all have been condemned at one point or another for their attitude. And all of them are winners.
Frankly, I prefer sportsmen to have a focus on winning and constantly improving their game. For too long, British sport had been plagued by a satisfaction with being second best. I’m happy that somebody like Murray is utterly focused on improving his game and becoming the best. I’m not massively bothered about what part time sports fans think about that. When he starts winning Grand Slams, as I have no doubt he will, then his ‘attitude’ and focus on winning will have been entirely vindicated.
Related posts
Tags: Sport
Posts
February 1st, 2010 at 11:34 pm
I have no problem with Andy Murray; but with some of the other Brits, we need to demand standards from figures in the public eye.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:22 am
You’re either a winner or a whiner – but we Brits don’t like ANYONE to be too successful in any area – getting above themselves, donchoo know
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Andy Murray is clearly a phenomenal talent. Why the need to sneer at Middle England, David? Chip? Shoulder?
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:36 am
Dave
Very good point about Murray’s innate talent (and without a doubt one of the UK’s best tennis players in generations), right up until you said:
‘Clearly, people would prefer their tennis players to be fresh faced, “well-spoken” embodiments of middle England than sportsmen with a relentless focus on winning. There is a reason why he has already achieved so much more than people like Jeremy Bates or Tim Henman.’
Here you’re both ignoring two important issues:
1. You imply Bates and Henman really werent that bothered about winning – i think that’s actually a bit of an insult to their lifetime’s commitment to sport
2. Andy Murray wore a Paraguay shirt when they played England at the World Cup.
Strangely enough people from my home town cite this latter issue as a reason they’re not great Murray supporters – but you suggest it’s one about class. I think it’s called: ‘Scottish-English tension’. See- simple analysis, without having to make any reference to the ‘c-word’.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:41 am
Will – a few rebuttals to your points.
1 – I’m not implying that Bates and Henman weren’t that committed to winning. What I am saying is that they didn’t have the mental strength and discipline to close games out (see Henman’s folding to Ivanesivic in the Wimbledon semi finals as a good example). Henman and Bates choked too many times at the business end of matches to think that they possessed the real killer instinct of champions. Phil Taylor talks about his success in darts being down to the fact that his resolute commitment to winning and mental strength being considerably greater than other players. It is this mental attitude that differentiates the great players and the champions from the good players.
2 – As far as the World Cup is concerned, people who pick on Murray’s comments a few years ago are largely people who don’t really understand football and don’t understand the friendly footballing rivalry between England and Scotland (or between the likes of Sunderland and Newcastle for that matter). To dislike a proven winner based on his comments when he was 19 seems pretty harsh to me.
I haven’t reduced anything to class but there is a separate argument to be made about why tennis hasn’t reached out more to the inner cities and beyond the leafy suburbs. Pat Cash seems to think so and the LTA’s attempts to reach out to inner cities in the past few years seems to suggest that they accept there is an issue.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/article-23770580-pat-cash-lets-face-it-the-lta-are-still-a-total-joke-to-tennis.do
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:42 am
Ask yourself two things:
• Would Murray be more popular if he didn’t possess a wonderful killer instinct?
• Would Murray be more popular if he was from England, preferably southern England?
If you answer ‘yes’ to either of those (and I can’t see how anyone could answer anything but ‘yes’) then David has a point.
Though I hear Murray criticised constantly by the Barley-water-sipping classes, I never cease to be shocked at how middle England allows its prejudices to cloud its judgement of a sporting great.
Perhaps it will take that inevitable Grand Slam win before all of Britain recognises Murray’s exceptional talent for what it is.
That said, it will take a lot more blogging from David before I recognise darts players as the sporting greats he seems to think they are…but perhaps I am revealing my own prejudices…