That was painful to watch (the way Reeshard was treated, not the actual toilet break). As was the Popeye tribute.
As are the rather desperate attempts of the media, to drum up a storyline for this year's Campaign.
You see, we have the history-evoking cable-knit attire, the stars appear to be aligned with the Fred Perry Centenary and we also, for the first time, have someone actually capable of going all the way.
And yet...it all still seems a little lopsided, not least because of his troubled relationship with the British Public. How after all, do you get the nation behind someone best known for slagging off the England Football Team?
All a load of tosh off course - what he actually said was he'd support 'anyone playing England', and it was all said in the very light hearted setting of some lively banter involving Tim Henman and some other journos, when they teased him about Scotland's early exit from the World Cup.
No matter. Taking such an 'anti-English' stance so publicly, and perhaps more jarringly rooting against 'our boys', however well-intentioned, was akin to taking a leak on hallowed ground. And the actions of a few over-enthusiastic journos ensured his fate was sealed as the Sports Celeb we all love to hate.
Even those that saw fit to defend him through that debacle -- one that saw him receive a large amount of hate mail on his website -- found it less easy to cosy up to a player that barked obscenities at Brad Gilbert whenever things got tough out there, and quite often even when they didn't.
Murray's gruff disposition rankled the British sensibility: this was SO not the face of British Tennis they wanted.
Understandable, up to a point.
And yet it's worth remembering Henman was mercilessly henpecked for not having enough 'fire in his belly'. He was even derided as being 'too middle class' in the heated exchanges that took place in the early morning breakfast radio shows that followed one of his Wimbledon defeats.
I'm not about to comment on Murray's standing in the social strata, and I don't buy into the theory on Henman's lack of competitive spirit. They're both different players, with unique talents of their own and express themselves very differently on court - that is all.
Anyway, things have cooled off since then, and many have followed Murray's rise up the rankings with renewed interest.
Brits, on the whole, are a fairly well-versed lot when it comes to 'the beautiful game' (and this is perhaps one of only a handful of UK-based sites where that description doesn't refer to Football - which I also think is a beautiful game btw), and even most casual tennis observers are well aware of his winning H2H against Federer as well as the other wins he's scored over Nadal and Djoko.
And though you continue to hear from those that would accuse him of being a 'foul-mouthed brat', it's usually from the same group that think the only story in tennis worth mentioning is Maria Sharapova's screams, or the amount of times Djoko bounces the ball - very 2006.
All of which means that the Fred Perry Cable-Knits were deemed insufficient - the Saga needed something a little extra to get the nation's competitive juices flowing and for them to begin to rally behind him.
Enter Roger Federer, and his well-publicised take on Murray's passive style of play, even going as far as to pick Davydenko over Murray to reach the finals at RG earlier this month.
And the five-time Wimbledon champion is clearly starting to feel the heat, having consistently criticised Murray’s style of play.
Federer has accused Britain’s brightest hope of negative tactics and failing to develop his game.
But world No 3 Murray countered last night: “A lot of the times I’ve beaten him, he has said negative things about me. His comments, though, don’t make me feel I need to change my game.
“I’ve won my last four matches against Roger and feel that will have a bearing if we meet again at Wimbledon this year. I will take a lot of confidence from those results.
“Much of the time, I think he has been very frustrated against me. That shows the style and tactics I play against him are working. He’s not used to losing very often and, when you’re upset, you sometimes say things you don’t mean.
“But I don’t think I’ve ever criticised an opponent. If someone beats you, you can’t have a go at the way they’ve played.
“When the top players lose it’s quite often down to a great performance from the opponent.
“So while it’s fine to be critical of yourself, and say you didn’t play your best match, it’s also fair to give credit to your opponent.”
(Source: The Sun)
I love the way the press suddenly feel the need to play on this drummed up trash talk.
It's no secret these two often see things very differently, but it's never bordered on acrimony, and it's certainly nothing like the very evident dislike Federer has for Djoko and his fitness related withdrawals.
Federer's well known for giving his at times slightly barbed opinion very decidedly, a trait I have no particular opinion on one way or the other.
But I welcome the fact that Murray's never shown the same levels of deference to Federer, that Nadal does rather too often. He tends, like Federer, to be quite frank in expressing his views. And even if that curtness may sometimes grate the British sensibility, it's part of the same innate nature that mustered up those 6 wins he had against the big man.Just remember that English Football is off limits next time.
Posts
