On Monday evening I was enthralled by that magnificent, white-knuckle fightback to a knee-buckling finish and a place in the Wimbledon quarter-finals. How I wanted him to win.writes Liz Hunt in today's Daily Telegraph.
And when he triumphed, for a brief moment I thought I did love him – until he indulged in that ridiculous “Popeye” gesture, baring his bicep at the crowd, and I was reminded, again, of all the reasons I don’t. Murray is too aggressive, too surly, too focused, too hairy and utterly charmless.
I couldn't agree more. Here's my First Post piece from 2006 on Britain's most miserable- and charmless sportsman- and although Murray has clearly improved as a tennis player since then- his ridiculous "Popeye" gesture on Monday night showed he hasn't improved much as a human being.
What's more important Neil, that Murray is nice and charming, or that he's a winner?
It's about time we had a tennis player who screams and shouts, and gets the job done. I'm hoping he sticks it to Nadal this afternoon.
It's surely not either/or, is it?
Roger Federer is 'nice and charming' and you couldn't say he wasn't a winner. Boris Becker was ultra-competitive, but could still manage a smile from time to time.
It isn't necessarily either/or internationally, but it does seem to be in Britain - and we all know the Telegraph's natural wariness of winners (those who fulfil the DT's criteria for "gentlemen" could simply not win in international sport as it is today).
I agree with you, but I prefer the Murray mania to Henman hype. In comparison to that weird movement of the late 90s early 2000s, Murray mania seems like a blessing (but annoying nonetheless).
I agree with Neil. Murray is charmless, presumably because hes still immature. BUT the british tabloids were not much better, with their Lion Murray. They were only encouraging his behavior, as did the crowd.
So long as he remains immature, he will always lose to top players, who have managed to turn their demons into angels. Roger Federer is the prime example.
Post a Comment