Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Random

Has someone got bored with updating this page? You can't list individual tournament performances up to San Jose and then have nothing after, you either have more detail consistantly or less detail and just outline periods of time. He has played countless tournaments since San Jose including the Davis Cup and several Masters series events. There are tournaments listed like Auckland where he wasnt setting the world alight, if you want those listed then you have to list the other ones where he does little as well.

Ok I have updated the 2006 record to this week, I suggest this can be condensed once the clay court season is finished. Maybe it can be arranged into US hardcourt spring and clay court sections.

Dunblane massacre

OMG, he was in the Dunblane massacre! That's awful! Today though his match against Stepanek was absolutely brilliant, I hope he does well!

Wimbledon Wildcard

I am not going to remove this as I know nothing about tennis, however this sentence makes little sense to me:

Murray's strong play and the excitement created by it helped push his way into a wild card for Wimbledon.

I would have thought that he was given a wildcard because of his success in several junior tournaments, especially last year's US Open, rather than the fact that he is exciting. Rje 00:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the statement (which i put in) is ambigious and slightly wrong-sounding. But, as Wimbledon's wildcards are given out by the LTA, i.e. British Tennis Officials, i think they would try and appease the public to an extent by allowing the wild cards to go against the rankings.

For example, they let old-favourite with London's Aussie community Mark Phillipoussis, world rank 142, (wimbledon having 128 players in the main draw) in, when there were less 'glamorous' or well-known players ranked higher than him in the world, who were arguably more worthy of the wild card, having gone to more tournaments, and worked harder to have accumulated more ranking points.

Equally, they let Richard Krajicek and his sister into the mixed doubles. there are a number of reasons why, had krajcek not been an ex-champion, he wouldn't have been allowed in:

• He hadn't played a single senior-level match that year, and was effectively retired.
• He hadn't won a tournament since 2000, and hadn't won a doubles tournament for a whole decade, since 1995!
• His highest ever ranking for doubles was 45, which even then would have barely seen him sneak into the 48-team mixed-doubles event.

So, in other words, yes I do think that the LTA play up to the public - the whole point about wildcards is to allow ex-greats or upcoming youngsters in (even youngsters with better junior rankings were not give cards). I will make the sense more clear.

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 10:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Injury

The article says that he sustained an injury - I thought that it was more due to tiredness. Any ideas?

Well,

• During Johansson @ Queen's, he twisted his ankle as a result of cramp - so essentially his tiredness caused his injury.
• Against Nalbandian in SW19, he was tired, but hadn't aggravated any injury - although his ankle was still hurting.

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 16:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Photograph

The photograph that was previously here has been removed for what I suppose is an acceptable reason. But could someone please add a replacement picture for the article then? (Jamandell (d69) 22:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

3 points/questions

Number 1

I have tried to compromise the UK/Scotland debate. I have put "Country - Great Britain (Davis Cup), UK (Nationality)" in the infobox - scotland is a nation not a country, and the purpose of this is to demonstrate his davis cup team and nationality. this detail appears on tables of other top tennis players. I have then made it clear that he is a UK Citizen in the introduction, but also a proud scotsman. Oh, and by the way, i own a kilt.

Number 2

Will we eventually have to move the extensive details on his 2005 season to something like Andrew Murray's breakthrough year, or just delete it?

Number 3

Does anyone have a quote confirming that he prefers clay courts?

Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 12:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to Number 1, he should be listed as representing Great Britain and his nationality as being from the UK, since neither England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are official nationalities, as they are not independant nations. So I agree with you there. And for number 2, I think we should just maybe leave it for now and wait, it obviously will have to shorten eventually, but I think we should let 2005 end first. (Jamandell (d69) 13:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC))

Oh goodness, I just read what it said! I think I will edit it, as it kinda gives an impression that it is abnormal for a Scot to be a UK citizen. Since every Scot is a UK citizen, it doesn't need to be mentioned and it doesn't need to mention that he has a UK passport. (Jamandell (d69) 13:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC))

It is standard practice on Wikipedia to refer to people as English, Scottish, Welsh in biographical articles. Why the fuss over Murray? I haven't seen this kind of fuss over Scottish?British, English?British, Welsh?British for over two months, and it is largely biogrphical articles I have been reading. It seems very strange that as soon as someone is in the news they immediately get changed from English to British, etc. Why? I bet you that if Murray was No 465, or deceased (God forbid) then he would happily be left to be a Scot! (By the way: Scotland (or England, or Wales) is a nation and a country, but not a state. Subtle, but vital difference. It crops up every day on Wikipedia on one article or another.)--Mais oui! 09:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well,

• Clearly we wouldn't be having this discussion if we knew that.
• By the way, I consider Alan Mackin, a hapless Scottish tennis player, to be British, and I equally consider Fred Perry to be a British - he is. There's no need to get bitter just 'cos you've got a crap football team.
• Finally, Scotland is not a country, according to both me and the Scotland page, it is "a constituent country of the United Kingdom".
  • The word pedant may be springing to mind right now.

At any case, thank you for your help.

Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 18:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If we take Tim Henman as a guide on this matter, I notice he is described as an English tennis player on this site.

Another point of note relates to the bad old days of football hooliganism. When English football clubs such as Liverpool did well in Europe, they were referred to as English. However, when their supporters (or hooligans claiming to be supporters) went on the rampage, they were referred to as British hooligans.

A final point should sum up how we deal with Andy's nationality. He is British and no-one, including himself, complains about this. However, he detests being called English just as much as Canadians detest being called Americans (despite Canada being part of the continent of America; this is something I don't understand). So as long as no-one calls him English, I don't think we should have too much to worry about ;) Mkns 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find it ridiculous that he should be removed from the category of British tennis players. Yes, he's a Scottish tennis player, and yes he should be in that category, but he is also therefore British, and it is only sense to include him in that! If we are having our tennis players kept in seperate categories, then how on earth does the British category even exist? Why not all split them up into Welsh and English and Northern Irish etc.

(Looking back I realise now that he has been reinstated, my mistake. But that still stands as my view) Jamandell (d69) 14:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jamandell - check out the "Categories" thread lower down this page. We reached a sort of consensus a few months back to keep him in the "British" category. I'm keen to keep Andy in the category, because it confused me when he wasn't there when I was looking there to find this article. However, there are good arguments for sticking with a hierarchy of categories... As for his nationality in the first paragraph - "Scottish" works well for me - Those readers who might be confused by the difference between Scottish & British can click on the word "Scottish" to find out more (this is an encyclopedia!), and I very much doubt anyone would be trying to find the article by coming from a list of Scots (which would be so long as to be unusable for that purpose).

pissing contest over murraysworld.com

is this a private thing between Mkns and anonymous? or can anyone join in?

Starting to anger me actually, I don't know whether to join in or not. I'm not sure what the official policy is on fansites and the like, and I'm not particularly interested in looking it up, but we have other fansites listed which don't get removed. So it seems to me like some personal vendetta, perhaps by a rival website builder? The user needs warning that it's considered vandalism, as far as I'm aware s/he hasn't yet; and failing that, banning. M A Mason 00:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

When I started putting the link back in I made it clear in my comment that it had been removed for no good reason. I have no idea who runs the site in question but as you say, other fan sites are linked to from the Wiki page so I don't understand why the anonymous user is repeatedly removing it. How do you consider advising someone that it is vandalism? Isn't the comment I left the first 2 times clear enough? And why is no-one else putting the link back in; up to this point others seem quite happy to stand by and let the page be vandalised! Mkns 22:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And now more links removed with no comment as to why. I give up. Mkns 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, sorry you semed to be doing such a good job :p. I've put them back in and will keep an eye on it. Thanks. M A Mason 21:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just left a polite message on his talk page. No excuse now. M A Mason 22:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And here we go again - just replaced a link that had been removed to the message board. I can understand that the Murraysworld person is upset when the blatant vandalism (comment: "Mark Owns You") that removed his/her link happens, but it's a shame they feel they need to take it out on the other links here.RobbieC 07:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever Mark is - he's vandalised the Murraysworld link again. I've changed it back. Seems to be on the same IP address all the time now. Will leave a message on the talk page.RobbieC 21:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested way forward

I'm really getting tired of the murraysworld.com/andymurraytennis.com game. Can I suggest a solution: Why don't the two of you agree to share the top billing evenly. Let's have murraysworld at the top of the list for one week, then andymurraytennis at the top for another week. I suggest that you also link to each other (which will improve both your Google search results), and try to get links from the official site, if necessary with the same sharing of ranking as on here.

It's a real shame that you're wasting energy on this, when I'm sure that you're key contributors to this page and many other tennis- related wiki pages, beyond being responsible for two very impressive fan sites.

Please would you both also (in good Wikipedia tradition) provide an external source for the claims that Murray and/or his team reads the sites. I've removed the claims for now until you can do so. RobbieC 07:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Regarding the battle over first place: Is it not fair to give first place to the link that was submitted to Wikipedia first? MurraysWorld was posted on Wikipedia a long time before andymurraytennis.com so it only seems fair.

And about the 'As read by' claims: Andy's current management told MurraysWorld that he reads the website. The short Q&A can be found here: http://www.murraysworld.com/messageboard/index.php/topic,1927.0.html

This Q&A was provided via email direct from his manager, I can supply the email with the header information if you can provide me with a way to privately send it to you.

Andy's previous management personally told me in a meeting that he reads the site. You can find the discussion here: http://www.murraysworld.com/messageboard/index.php/topic,340.0.html

I think that substantiates the claim as far as I'm concerned - anyon else with anyother opinions??

Thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss it. Can I suggest that you also register as a user rather than using an anonymous ip address going forward, and sign your contributions in talk, using four "tilde" characters "~" "~" "~" "~" - it shows goodwill: that you're willing to talk and not just changing someone else's edits for the sake of it.

As for the battle over first place, what I think we need is a solution that both you and the phantom andymurraytennis.org person can both live with, so that you don't have to spend all your time on changing the links on this page and getting upset with each other. I'm not sure that saying "I was here first" will have that effect. Meanwhile please remember that Wikipedia is not a repository of links and (in my opinion at least)that we're here to provide a useful reference work for people trying to find out about Andy and not to provide traffic to any of the (excellent) fan websites. See if you can think of a way of co- existing with andymurraytennis.org so that we can all concentrate on how to improve this page!

RobbieC 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this RobbieC.

I don't know if this "battle" will ever end unless a moderator of Wikipedia doesn't put an end to it. Personally I think it would be unfair to share the position with the other party as MW.com was at the top for a long time until they discovered Wikipedia and decided to come along and knock it off. Mark7144 12:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see it's really annoyed you - must be really frustrating when you've put so much effort into your site and, as you say, got MW to the top of the wikipedia list first. Unfortunately, my guess is that if you did take the issue to arbitration, the solution would be to take all fan site links off the page. To avoid having to go that far, we should try to reach a consensus among the wikipedians who edit this page. Ideally, by getting you and whoever it is to agree on it - and as you say, I can't see that happening if you both want to be top, and won't compromise. I've left messages on the talk page for the andymurraytennis.org ip address person, as well as on the messageboard affiliated to that site, so we'll hopefully get them to come here and discuss it. Interestingly, the link to andymurraytennis.org got removed last night when the messageboard link was brought to the top of the list by the same person who vandalised your site's reference.

I think the next step is to restore your "As read by" claim, and wait for a response - hopefully on here, rather than by just another reversion. RobbieC 13:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have put back the 'As read by' claim to the link, hope that's OK for now.

And thanks for messaging the other website owners, hopefully they will come and join the discussion here. Mark7144 13:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! I'll continue our conversation on your user page RobbieC 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Response from anonymous person putting andymurraytennis.org at the top of the list

Reply: I've changed it because I think that andymurraytennis.org and it's activeboard messageboard are by far and away the best Murray and British tennis sites on the web. I think that it's in the best interest of wiki readers to be directed to the best site on the web for Murray news. If you look at murraysworld, the majority of the discussion is non-tennis and just seems to be schoolfriends chatting like on msn. Surely, the best "tennis site" for murray news should be at the top of the list.

> This was posted on the talk page of the ip address of the person who is moving the murraysworld.org link to the bottom of the list. I am asking them to bring their dispute to this talk page, or to resolve it directly with Mark. RobbieC 15:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving MurraysWorld.com to the bottom of the list and putting his website to the no1 spot is vandalism in my eyes, no need for that. And regarding his reply, that is simply his opinion and considering his website is more focused on British tennis in general (he has said this is the case on several occasions) rather than just Andy Murray - I feel MW is a much more relevant and useful resource. Mark7144 16:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think we've worked out what the two sides of the debate are. I've invited the user to come onto this discussion page User_talk:86.3.243.247 to see if the two of you can come to some agreement. Hopefully he/she will show willing. Please hold off on any actions for 24 hours or so to allow them to make a move.RobbieC 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know that the owner of the messageboard sent me a message saying he isn't the person making the alterations so it's a mystery to him as well.Mark7144 00:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New IP address removing Murraysworld from the top of the list

User talk:86.17.152.20 is now removing the Murraysworld site from the top of the list. I have invited the anonymous user to come to this talk page to discuss the reasons behind his or her changes. If we don't see anything soon, I'll have to assume their changes are vandalism. RobbieC 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter Robbie ?

Hi there, thanks for bringing this issue to "talk". If you're saying that the order of the links doesn't matter, why are you changing them?RobbieC 12:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To put them in alphabetical order, I'm a stickler for these sort of things

I'm sorry, but that doesnt ring true. You've only moved the one link, and left the rest in the order they were previously in. You've also done this eight times from that email address, moving that one link to a number of different positions. I'd like to think that you're trying to be constructive here, but I'm struggling to do so. I'd be more willing to believe it if you were to register or to sign on to hopld this conversation or make the changes. IP addresses make you appear to want to remain anonymous for some reason.

Please make a reasonable case for the order you want the list to be in, or I'll have to assume that you're more interested in damaging the website involved or irritating those who chose to edit the page. RobbieC 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't got round to putting the whole list in alphabetical order before, have done now so it's as it should be

Call for a consensus on the fansites list

OK, well it seems that's all you're going to say. So to resolve this dispute, I guess we need you (IP address 86.17.152.20) to explain why it's best to have these links in alphabetical order, and have Mark to explain why the list should reflect the popularity or quality of the sites involved.

Please can I have the opinions of those who regularly edit this site:

1.Should there be a list of fansites?

2.Should it be ordered

a) alphabetically

b) by site's popularity or quality

c) by some other factor

3. If by popularity/quality how to judge this?

Yes I suppose there should be a list of fansites, I don't see a reason why now. And I've always thought that alphabetical order would be best, it's completely without bias. I also think that none of these sites should have a caption beside them, eg "As read by Andy Murray". Wikipedia shouldn't be used as advertising space. A person will find it out for themselves if they choose to visit the site in the first place. Thankyou for listening. Jamandell (d69) 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the list of fansites, don't see why they should be removed. As the above person said Alphabetical order is the most suitable way of sorting out the fansites. Vonce 16:16, 6 July 2006 (GMT)

I agree with alphabetical, and that's alphabetically by domain name, not by someone calling their site 'AAAAA+ Andy Murray'. A list of fan sites is perfectly OK in my eyes, but agree that the continuous re-ordering is pathetic. Mkns 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (although I subsequently changed my mind) Mkns 12:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)