Bollettieri thinks Murray can't win a GS

First topic message reminder :

This is taken from an interview with SPOX, translated from German:

SPOX: Andy Murray would be glad if he would finally win his first Grand Slam tournament. The Scot was close to it a few times when it will be for him so far?

Bollettieri: Never.

SPOX: Excuse me? Andy Murray has everything that a great champion.

Bollettieri: Look, Andy Murray is a great character, much like my past was Andre Agassi. But why you do not just take what Boris Becker has said about him. "Andy Murray has no weapon and never will be a Grand Slam title to get," which are Boris's words. And I'm close to. Murray has improved his forehand and his serve, his footwork is amazing, he's an outstanding player return, he has a world-class backhand, but in order to win a Grand Slam tournament, he would have to play a little bit offensively. The question is whether he has the weapons to win a really big thing? I do not think so. Even more so, because there are so many other strong boys. It is not easy for Murray.

Here is the link;

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.spox.com/de/sport/mehrsport/tennis/1108/Artikel/nick-bollettieri-interview-us-open-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-andy-murray-tommy-haas-sabine-lisicki.html&ei=8YBVTsucCIbLtAaB-5HmDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbollettieri%2Bspox%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1152%26bih%3D747%26prmd%3Divns

droogle wrote:Murray has to work too hard for too little, his forehand just isn't good enough and too much energy is expended inefficiently. Nadal (for instance) generates way more power with much less effort, over several sets efficiency wins out. Murray can use everything he's got to win a set but then he's spent.
Yes, he's got other shots and his serve is good, but they're nothing that's going to do real damage.

Actually, I think you are right about his forehand but wrong about the cause. It isn't energy efficiency he lacks it is the fact that he doesn't seem to use as much legs and shoulder rotation as the other top guys with his forehand. If anything he doesn't put enough energy into the forehand. When I watch murray hit the forehand I think his stance is a little to open and he doesn't get the body rotation or leg drive the great forehands deliver more consistently.

lol droogle

"as someone has said already, no-one want to be a counter-puncher type of player"

And was that "someone" a 606v2 expert on tennis poster by chance!

Murray should take up Boxing, or Golf, to get that forehand in a more dominant position against plucky players. It is clearly not very good unless he is playing some early round mug.

socal1976 wrote:

Actually, I think you are right about his forehand but wrong about the cause. It isn't energy efficiency he lacks it is the fact that he doesn't seem to use as much legs and shoulder rotation as the other top guys with his forehand. If anything he doesn't put enough energy into the forehand. When I watch murray hit the forehand I think his stance is a little to open and he doesn't get the body rotation or leg drive the great forehands deliver more consistently.

That doesn't mean energy isn't being expended, it just means it's not directed correctly (efficiently). Muscle groups can all be tiring themselves out working against each other. If you agree with that then we agree.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Agassi thinks he'll be a multi slam winner, Nadal has stated the same.

I'm not saying that Agassgi and Nadal are right or wrong, I'm just stating that unlike we people discussing tennis on a forum, its not easy for a player to answer such question when put straight to them. Nadal said that Murray can win a slam, Federer said that too I myself as well. But on these question they will have to answer diplomatically rather than what they might actually feel. They may really feel so, but just imagine if Nadal is asked "Do you think Ferrer will win a slam?" Or "What chances you think are for Monfils to win US open 2011?" or If Federer is asked "Do you think Fish now being #7 ranked player, #1 American, winning the USOpen series 2011 and having a great summer can actually win US Open 2011?" What you thing he will answer?

Of course they will say something like "yes he is good player. and playing decent matches, and has a decent chance of winning just like the other 127 playing the tournament."

How will he say "Not really. He just doesn't have it in him what it takes to win a slam and hence won't".

Now how many posters here actually think the Ferrer or Monfils or Fish will win US open 2011 or a slam in their entire career?

I agree, if asked it would be difficult to say otherwise. However, he said the following after the WTF match and he wasn't prompted or asked to comment about Murray at all. He said "I want to tell all the British people to be patient with Andy, he is a fantastic player and in my opinion will win many grand slams"

Agassi has no reason to say he thinks he'll win many. They're hardly buddies are they, and Agassi has never been one to pay lip service to anyone. Not that it essentially matters. I'm sure there's loads of qualified people who think he will win one or many, just as there will be loads who think otherwise.

How many of these people do you think predicted that Djokovic would blow everyone away during 2011? I didn't hear one person say it. Opinions are opinions, everyone has one.

He simply doesn't make enough noise when he hits the ball to be a Bollitieri type player.

Maybe if he made an awful noise to put the opponent off like De Brito or Nadal, he would have a chance. Maybe that's the weapon he's on about.

In terms of Murray's forehand, it's good but not as good as the others. However his backhand is possibly the best in the game, either up the line of cross court... So that balances out I think.

In terms of what Murray needs to do better, that can quite easily be seen for these stats:

ATP STATISTICS FOR 2011

1st SERVE RETURN PTS WON
Murray 37% (1st)
Djokovic 36% (2nd)
Nadal 35% (3rd)
Federer 33% (9th)

SERVICE GAMES WON
Federer 89% (3rd best in ATP)
Djokovic 88% (4th)
Nadal 84% (15th)
Murray 78% (35th)

2nd SERVE POINTS WON
Nadal 57% (1st)
Djokovic 57% (2nd, two fewer matches than Nadal)
Federer 57% (3rd, seven fewer matches than Djokovic)
Murray 47% (62nd)


He has to either get a higher percentage on his first serve, or be more aggressive on his second serve. Perhaps both. His service stats are all that stops Murray winning slams. It isn't the rest of his game, it can't be if his return stats are so good.

Funny, didn't he just say in an interview he had a better second serve than Nadal?
However, your statistics don't speak merely about the serve itself, it's also about free points on the first (or second) serve and what happens when the player gets into rallies. . . it's not a complete picture.

Edit: actually I didn't read your post carefully enough. That's very interesting, I'm going to have to pay more attention to what Murray does when he's returning.

One thing, that Toni Nadal admitted, is that Nadal's serve is modeled using Murray's first serve. (This is from June 2010, before Nadal showed his 130+ mph first serve @ USO 2010).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1284318/Rafael-Nadal-wants-service-like-Andy-Murrays.html

I don't think Murray is ever going to win a Major. Yes he has reached 3 finals, but he doesn't have that extra gear that Federer, Nadal or Djokovic reach during slam finals.

We Are Number 1!!! wrote:I don't think Murray is ever going to win a Major. Yes he has reached 3 finals, but he doesn't have that extra gear that Federer, Nadal or Djokovic reach during slam finals.

#1, he has not retired yet! (Never Say Never - as James Bond would say).

Josiah Maiestas wrote:This is taken from an interview with SPOX, translated from German:

SPOX: Andy Murray would be glad if he would finally win his first Grand Slam tournament. The Scot was close to it a few times when it will be for him so far?

Bollettieri: Never.

SPOX: Excuse me? Andy Murray has everything that a great champion.

Bollettieri: Look, Andy Murray is a great character, much like my past was Andre Agassi. But why you do not just take what Boris Becker has said about him. "Andy Murray has no weapon and never will be a Grand Slam title to get," which are Boris's words. And I'm close to. Murray has improved his forehand and his serve, his footwork is amazing, he's an outstanding player return, he has a world-class backhand, but in order to win a Grand Slam tournament, he would have to play a little bit offensively. The question is whether he has the weapons to win a really big thing? I do not think so. Even more so, because there are so many other strong boys. It is not easy for Murray.

Here is the link;



http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.spox.com/de/sport/mehrsport/tennis/1108/Artikel/nick-bollettieri-interview-us-open-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-andy-murray-tommy-haas-sabine-lisicki.html&ei=8YBVTsucCIbLtAaB-5HmDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbollettieri%2Bspox%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1152%26bih%3D747%26prmd%3Divns

Something not adding up here as if Boris Becker DID say all that then when was it as Boris Becker was tipping Andy to win Wimbledon. See link below:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/8608949/Wimbledon-2011-Andy-Murray-will-win-the-mens-title-if-he-retains-the-same-intensity-says-Boris-Becker.html

Craig...

The German translation may include some paraphrasing by Bollettieri.

"It was a revealing moment, and one which showed that Andy now needs to improve technically, to ingrain the killer shot so deep inside him that it becomes instinctive to play it at the right moment, like Roger. That is the next stage in his progression."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/7121517/Boris-Becker-Andy-Murray-needs-to-add-major-aggression-following-Australian-Open.html

Yes laverfan I realise that but Boris comments in the link I posted was during Wimbledon about six weeks ago. I think it just proves that all opinions are just that....opinions so not worth getting hot and bothered about. I will wait for the slams to take their course naturally rather than worry what someone thinks.

I'll have to say these next 2 slams are the most important slams Murray will ever play in, as it looks farfetched that he could ever win a SW19 or a RG. What does Craig think? (winning at cincinnatti is not exactly a good parameter for the slower US courts) Apart from those who already have slams, I would consider Tsonga, Berdych or Monfils as the next likely winner.

I'd hope every slam Andy has ever played in are equally as important. I won't panic if Andy doesn't win either the US or Australian Open after all how old was Goran Ivanisevic when he won his first slam? Equally Andre Agassi enjoyed more success in his late 20's and early 30's so no panic from me.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I'd hope every slam Andy has ever played in are equally as important. I won't panic if Andy doesn't win either the US or Australian Open after all how old was Goran Ivanisevic when he won his first slam? Equally Andre Agassi enjoyed more success in his late 20's and early 30's so no panic from me.

Sure, but Goran didn't need to rally as he had a beautiful S+V, and with Tomic and Raonic coming through, itll only get harder.

Tomic and Raonic are potential challengers but at the moment that is all they are and Agassi was by no means a S and V man.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I'd hope every slam Andy has ever played in are equally as important. I won't panic if Andy doesn't win either the US or Australian Open after all how old was Goran Ivanisevic when he won his first slam? Equally Andre Agassi enjoyed more success in his late 20's and early 30's so no panic from me.

Sure, but Goran didn't need to rally as he had a beautiful S+V, and with Tomic and Raonic coming through, itll only get harder.

It will remain hard, but it won't get harder. There are 3 great players above him in the rankings, which in the not too distant future will be reduced to 2. Federer is in the autumn of his career, and he's won more slams than anyone ever has. I doubt Tomic or Raonic will be able to replicate that.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I'll have to say these next 2 slams are the most important slams Murray will ever play in, as it looks farfetched that he could ever win a SW19 or a RG. What does Craig think? (winning at cincinnatti is not exactly a good parameter for the slower US courts) Apart from those who already have slams, I would consider Tsonga, Berdych or Monfils as the next likely winner.

Is that the same Tsonga, Berdych and Monfils who are all older than Murray and have 2 Masters 1000 wins and 2GS Runners-up between them ? If so I can't see the logic in your statement which seems to imply that if Murray doesn't not win either of the next two slams he never will. None of these players, including Murray, may ever win a GS but going on age (which people seem to be obsessed with) and past tournament record, and current ranking Murray must be rated with a better chance that the other three. Note I am not rubbishing these players Tsonga and Monfils in particular have great skills and athleticism but similar to Murray can lose it mentally.

And poor old Murray has only got 7 Masters titles



Since when did a player HAVE to win a Slam to be considered

one of the top 4 players in the world ?

DP won one and look at him now !

Spot on yummymummy. Even if Andy retired tomorrow he'd still have had a tremendous career and been the most successful British tennis player since Fred Perry.

I fink so too CC !!!!!!!!!!!!!



Josiah is just a touch of saliva in the wind - you

feel it but it doesn't register !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tremendous career

he will be remembered for crying after Roger took him to the cleaners, and going walkabout to Nole despite being at the peak of his powers.

Sorry, but winning masters titles in this era does not get you much credit, especially as the others didn't waste a lot of energy in them, it's almost for the players to try out a few things exhibition style, so you keep the 7 minor exhibition titles, while the real players win slams!

You are starting to sound like Raiders of the Lost bum!

Don't rock JM's boat LK

lol - His favourite player Dolgopolov has already got one 250 title in his cabinet!

Josiah. See my previous post in answer to yours. As often happens you throw in a statement that has no basis or is incorrect and when challenged with true facts ignore it before throwing out some other barb. Yes Murray has not won a GS and IMO needs to do this to define his career but lets not kid on that all the top guys want to win Masters 1000 events as well. Remember these count towards rankings and therefore seedings so they are not won by default. I didn't see Nadal or Djokovic taking it easy against Murray in Monte Carlo and Rome respectively this year so how come when he wins you say no one is trying. Yet another fallacy which you cannot back up.

Still he can't prove that he can win finals in a bo5, or, even get to finals in non HC slams.

Oh sportslover, old man, you'll wish you never said that, for Dolgopolov shall be crowned a slam hero, before Murray and his band of hangers on have seen there first ladies mag..!

I rate Murray in these exhibition tournaments, I really do, but the way you fans go on you'd think he was in the same league as the big 3, tennis achievements wise...

Mmmm. The same Dolgopolov who is about 18 months younger than Murray turned pro a year after him and has one career title to his name (ATP 250), QF in AO 2011 beaten by Murray in 4 sets, rest of GS and Masters 1000 results not worth mentioning.

The same dolgopolov who has never got hammered in 3 straight sets on 3 occasions.... yea, that's him, alright

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Tremendous career

he will be remembered for crying after Roger took him to the cleaners, and going walkabout to Nole despite being at the peak of his powers.

Sorry, but winning masters titles in this era does not get you much credit, especially as the others didn't waste a lot of energy in them, it's almost for the players to try out a few things exhibition style, so you keep the 7 minor exhibition titles, while the real players win slams!

Sorry your judgement is so clouded by hatred. He will be remembered by his achievements and you claim Masters titles don't count for much. Andy stands seventh equal now in the most successful Masters Cup players of all-time with his seven wins and guess who are ahead of him in the list? Yes legends such as Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal and other greats like Djokovic so yes it does very much matter to the very best players in the world so dry your eyes JM. Tremendous career Andy and you still haven't finished yet.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The same dolgopolov who has never got hammered in 3 straight sets on 3 occasions.... yea, that's him, alright

Correct JM especially at the USO where he hasn't managed to get past the first round

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The same dolgopolov who has never got hammered in 3 straight sets on 3 occasions.... yea, that's him, alright

Same old Josiah. As usual when your original statement was statistically proved to be flawed you come back with another irrelevant one liner. If you don't get to finals or even semi finals of GS or Mastes 1000 events you can't get beaten in them.

And who has Andy Murray beaten in those Masters Finals?

2008 Madrid Masters - Beat Gilles Simon 6-4 7-6 (having beaten Roger Federer in semis)

2008 Cincinnati Masters - Beat Novak Djokovic 7-6 7-6

2009 Miami Masters - Beat Novak Djokovic 6-2 7-5

2009 Rogers Masters - Beat Juan Martin del Potro 6-7 7-6 6-1

2010 Rogers Masters - Beat Roger Federer 7-5 7-5 (having beaten Rafael Nadal in the semis)

2010 Shanghai Masters - Beat Roger Federer 6-3 6-2

2011 Cincinnati Masters - Beat Novak Djokovic 6-4 3-0 ret.

All players of great repute in the game.

All of this matches have something in common, Craig, his opponent in each of those matches all played below 50% of their normal level, apart from Miami 2009 where Novak played below 20% his real level.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:All of this matches have something in common, Craig, his opponent in each of those matches all played below 50% of their normal level, apart from Miami 2009 where Novak played below 20% his real level.

No apart from the Cinci final where you could argue that Djokovic was injured and the result affected all the other were won by the better player on the day. That's the way singles tennis is Josiah. It's a head to head game. I'm sure that if Murray fans came out and said that Djokovic only won the AO open this year because Murray didn't play well they would laughed at. Novak was by far the better player that day and deserved to win. That's the way things are. It's time you started accepting things similarly.

I think Dolgopolov is a good prospect but Dolgopolopolov needs to find more consistency. Dolgopolopolopolopov is no longer a youngster in tennis terms and therefore needs to make a move soon. Dolgopolopogopolopolopolov has a good array of shots but his mental approach is questionable. Quite often it seems that Dolgopolopolopogopolopolopolov loses his cool in the heat of battle. However, Dolgopolopolopolopogopogopolopolopolov is an exciting player to watch when he's in the zone.

emancipator - universal intergalactic tennis expert and correspondent.

Join the bandwagon, emancipator

Josiah Maiestas wrote:All of this matches have something in common, Craig, his opponent in each of those matches all played below 50% of their normal level, apart from Miami 2009 where Novak played below 20% his real level.

Absolute tosh and nonsense and you know it. As I said earlier which you choose to ignore (the most successful Masters winners of all-time) include the greatest players to play the game such as Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal as well as Novak Djokovic. The cream comes to the top in these events as that list proves and Andy Murray is equal seventh in the all-time winners list and not finished yet

I do think that master's are underrated by fans and the media, I don't know why the 1000 pointers fail to really capture the imagination or be valued as the difficult accomplishments they are. Murray clearly deserves respect for how well he has done in these very important tournaments. If he does win a slam, I would instantly rate higher than many other one slam and even two slam winners on the strength of his master's haul. I think with players that have the same or similar number of slams its a good way to differentiate consistent performance throughout the whole year. One thing the ATP could do to help this situation is stop changing the name of these 1000 pointers every 4 years so fans get used to what these tournaments mean. At one time they were called grand prix, Mercedes Cup, Master's events, and now they call them ATP 1000s. I liked the masters, why don't they just call them one name and keep it forever so fans understand what it means.

Dolcrapalov won't win anything. I will bve amazed if he ever reaches a GS Quarter Final let alone a Final or Semi.

WHAT is so special about Andy that you have to keep on and on

and on and on about him Not winning A Slam Josiah ?



Jealousy perhaps ?

legendkillar wrote:Dolcrapalov won't win anything. I will bve amazed if he ever reaches a GS Quarter Final let alone a Final or Semi.

Well he did actually reach the QF of the AO this year only to be beaten by Murray in four sets. Then I suppose in some peoples opinion Dolgopolov was probably only playing at less than 50% capacity therefore gifting Murray the win.

legendkillar wrote:Dolcrapalov won't win anything. I will bve amazed if he ever reaches a GS Quarter Final let alone a Final or Semi.

He did actually reach the Q/F's of the AO this year.

Calder106 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Dolcrapalov won't win anything. I will bve amazed if he ever reaches a GS Quarter Final let alone a Final or Semi.

Well he did actually reach the QF of the AO this year only to be beaten by Murray in four sets. Then I suppose in some peoples opinion Dolgopolov was probably only playing at less than 50% capacity therefore gifting Murray the win.

Don't YOU Start !!!!!

I stand corrected.

Though I still don't Dolwhatshisname

I don't buy the Dog as a serious challenger either. Maybe if Dog really has a great career he could finish in the top 10 for a year or two, maybe. I don't think he will ever be a consistent top 5 player like Murray. I don't even think he is one of the top 3 prospects right now. I rate Harrison, Raonic, and Tomic as better prospects for future sucess.

You guys should stop making fun of his name.

For the record the top seven Masters winners of all-time are:-

1st. Rafael Nadal with 19
2nd. Andre Agassi with 17
2nd=. Roger Federer with 17
4th. Pete Sampras with 11
5th. Novak Djokovic with 10
6th. Thomas Muster with 8
7th. Michael Chang with 7
7th=. Andy Murray with 7

Also just to add that on grass Andy is in the top ten all-time list of best win percentage in matches on that surface.

emancipator wrote:You guys should stop making fun of his name.

ermmm.....no.

The OP has made fun of Murray time and time again, so what goes around comes around.