There's a little frenzy going on about whether Andy Murray should be knighted for his services to strawberry sales.

What do you think?

Setting aside the issue of honours as a whole (did you know that the record for most rejections of honours goes to LS Lowry?), it's something you offer at the end of someone's career.

Otherwise, in this sense: two grand slams = knighthood; what happens if he wins six slams in total (as per John McEnroe's prediction), including, say, a trio of Wimbledon titles?

It's populist nonsense.

On a side note it was rather amusing watching the British political glitterati vying for centre stage at the final.
Nauseatingly amusing that is.

Seeing Alex Salmond waving a Scottish flag, directly behind David Cameron's head was quite amusing.

That, in shovel-loads. Murray is deserving of praise but a knighthood is not right at this stage.

Responses so far tie in with my own view.

If I may widen the discussion ... what do the panel think about knighthoods and gongships to captains of industry and civil servants who were (in my view) just doing their job and getting well-paid for it?

A pole with lashings of grease on it.
It's all a game anyway, isn't it?

Decorating the already decorated.

In this case, what is the point? He's just been made Wimbledon tennis champion, something the media and sponsors will jump all over for years.

Services to tennis? He hasn't provided any service to tennis whatsoever. He's simply served himself by competing in tennis tournaments.

The honours system is mainly BS anyway. It's not going to change with his imminent knighthood. They should just make sure that Ryan Giggs gets knighted at the same time.

You should not get an honour for winning one tournament. Nadal and Federer weren't up for the tournament, so Murray gets a gong for winning one tennis match in effect.

I've no problem him getting one further down the line when he retires if he continues to behave as he has. The Olympics set a dangerous precedent though, with everyone who got a medal seemingly getting an award, and that is another set of very elitist sports like tennis where so few play the game that it's basically money that decides whether you are successful or not.

El Barbudo wrote:Responses so far tie in with my own view. If I may widen the discussion ... what do the panel think about knighthoods and gongships to captains of industry and civil servants who were (in my view) just doing their job and getting well-paid for it? Old boys' club back-slapping, certainly in terms of civil servants. For "captains of industry" – well, why not if they really have done well, creating jobs and not just getting rid of them, for instance. But should Sir Terry Leahy hand his back? Does it set a bad example in terms of what the establishment might be considered to be applauding? His behaviour (and he is not alone in creating this situation) hardly seems to be good for the business.

El Barbudo wrote:Responses so far tie in with my own view. If I may widen the discussion ... what do the panel think about knighthoods and gongships to captains of industry and civil servants who were (in my view) just doing their job and getting well-paid for it? Old boys' club back-slapping, certainly in terms of civil servants. For "captains of industry" – well, why not if they really have done well, creating jobs and not just getting rid of them, for instance. But should Sir Terry Leahy hand his back? Does it set a bad example in terms of what the establishment might be considered to be applauding? His behaviour (and he is not alone in creating this situation) hardly seems to be good for the business.