Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Wimbledon Wildcard

message: 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)
thread_title:  Injury 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Response from anonymous person putting andymurraytennis.org at the top of the list

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Call for a consensus on the fansites list