Andy Murray - Step Back In Time

After 7 hours of tennis and reflection, I think that despite a valiant performance, Andy needs to really dumb his approach to improvement right down.

Look at the top guys:

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. They have that belief in their shots. They know what the strengths are in their shots. Technically they haven't done much over the years to improve their shots. Nadal has increased the power in his serve. Other than that, nothing drastic.

We come to Murray. Diets, improved fitness. I am not disputing Murray's attitude, because he is by far the most committed player on tour to tennis and area's he thinks needs improvement. Something that some of the other players outside the top 10 may need to take on board if they want to improve their rankings.

Murray needs to look at 2 areas. Second Serve and the Forehand. What we have is pace issue. There is no place in the game for someone to be dumping a 69mph second serve in a match. A Grand Slam Semi final is not the place. His FH he has shown in the Clay Court season can be hit with brute force, yet time and time again seems reluctant to do so when he really needs it.

Murray finds himself in a bit of hard place. Ranked 4 in the world and now 24 years of age and no Slam. Can he improve his ranking? Yes, but he needs a Slam as a starting point to do so. When you have been ranked 4 in the world for so long and yet have a game which seems so far from winning a Slam makes it all the more difficult to find motivation.

Murray needs to go back in time. Go back to the period of 2005-2007. Where improvement was drastic and it showed in performances and ranking. What was the mindset? What has changed in his belief from then to now? Playing players ranked higher than him by a considerable margin and winning, why can't the same mentality be adopted now? Andy needs that belief again. To be able to go into a match without doubt or fear. For me the Maclaghan years set him backwards. After his first Slam final in 2008 he worked more on his defences and 2009 was his worst year in terms of his tennis performances and was exploited by big and heavy hitters. He needs a coach to work with and take on board a fresh perspective of his current tennis. I have no doubt he has all the abilities, just a case of finding the formula to get them all working together in harmony at once.

It is the case of so near yet so far. In 2008 Murray nearly destroyed Rafa and had his number. Since then he has just let it slipped. He needs to be more aggressive and thinking when he is playing Nadal. He has beaten Djoko before and has much better chances against him and federer.

Unforced errors need to be reduced but how even I don't know. A slam is badly overdue. 2008 first final and since then 3 years have been passed and it still seems very elusive.

Good analysis legend. Wouldn't argue with anything you've said.

However I think Murray's biggest problem is his mental approach to big games. He seems to start too cautiously and is prone to mistakes early on, which usually leads to him being a set or two down.

Secondly, when he's under pressure he isn't shy about letting everyone know and berating himself in front of everyone. Must be a sight his opponents love to see.

Quite a contrast to players like Nadal and Federer who barely show any emotion while they're playing and seem to channel any frustration they're feeling into stepping up their game. Murray needs to learn to stay calm and focused against the top players if he's going to win a Slam.

Murray does have a weaker forehand than his great backhand but as he showed yesterday it is not as bad. His forehand when he hits cross court is the weak element. His DTL forehand can be great and powerful at times. I'll think it will be better for him to play with his grip and attempt to put more spin on his cross court forehand. He hardly ever runs around his backhand and hits an inside out forehand as well as he has a great backhand but he can only improve the forehand with an approach like that.

Right at the start of the match I thought his forehand was looking strong. But within a couple of games it looked off-balance as it typically does.

I don't know if it's fair to compare him to Nadal. No-one can play like Nadal just like no-one can play like Roger. They each own their style of play and have a gift. Murray is a composite built out of hard work and practise. He doesn't move fluidly, his shot-making is laboured. . . really, what can he capitalise on to overcome Nadal's extraordinary gifts?

It looked to me like Nadal's backhand was doing stuff that it's not done before, he was creating spin and getting creative on that side, coming up with ridiculous shots. His general level of improvisation and ability to seamlessly transition from one shot to another is borne out of talent and he's getting better. Whereas Murray is still trying to learn the A-Z of tennis.

So winning Cincinnatti then Legendkillar/Craig/Sportslover....

What was that good for again???

Josiah Maiestas wrote:So winning Cincinnatti then Legendkillar/Craig/Sportslover....

What was that good for again???

Who said it was good? I think if you remember rightly most fans said that the tennis quality was poor.

Maybe you should worry about 1 set 1 masters Dolgopolov. Considering you gave him no chance against Karlovic

I think the thing with Murray, like against Haase, yesterday in the first 2 sets he couldn't click his game into place. He was playing a poor length and allowing Nadal to get onto his FH. It didn't help that Nadal was striking his BH superbly yesterday. Now, net play and serve and volley, Murray played some good slice wide serves and came into the net and volley. When he came into the net on Nadal's BH side, he was playing the approach shot too central and not up the line with great accuracy which opened the whole court up for Nadal. If anyone is to come to the net regularly against Nadal it is best to do it to the FH side by where Murray could play a better approach with this FH.

Nadal has clicked into form in the last 2 matches and to me that spells danger for Djokovic.

I get the impression that Murray has tried to imitate Nadals game with that use of moonballs; hitting the ball high over the net with easier control rather than his 2008/09 game which was to keep the ball flatter over the net, he beat Nadal in 08 and '10 by taking time away from Nadal not allowing him to be comfortable...unfortunately it's unlikely that he will ever go back to his flatter/quicker game which helped him into 3 finals

JM I think Murray struggled with the pace TBH. I think he tried too hard to remain in the points and never looked in control for the first 2 sets. Like you say when he did eventually flatten the ball, it looked like something from 08 and 10 performance. He has to work on flattening the ball out consecutively during rallies. I think just hitting one flat ball followed by 5 loopy balls isn't good enough to win a Slam, unless that one flat shot is a winner.

As long as Nadal is around Murray will never win a slam. I think he has the game to match Djoko and could take Djoko out in a slam final if a few things go his way such as a slightly slow start from Djoko or a bit of luck here and there.

Murray may just turn out to be one of the best British players in recent history never to win a slam.

Hopefully Oliver Golding and Liam Broady will have a better attitude than him if they end up making it in the big time; swearing at himself every single game needs to be stamped out, and umpires need to take action when players do it as it gives the game a bad look..

FedsFan wrote:As long as Nadal is around Murray will never win a slam. I think he has the game to match Djoko and could take Djoko out in a slam final if a few things go his way such as a slightly slow start from Djoko or a bit of luck here and there.

Murray may just turn out to be one of the best British players in recent history never to win a slam.

May just turn out to be? He already is by a country mile.

Here is my take on things here. Yes Andy does mentally beat himself up on court and it doesn't help his cause at all. Andy is a perfectionist that much is known and he is very hard and demanding of himself. If he isn't playing the shots he wants to or to a degree of the highest quality then he beats himself up mentally and physically. It is akin to him wrestling with himself as well as trying to beat his opponent - a massive handicap. Last night that was evident as he was muttering to himself early doors as clearly he wasn't (for some reason) playing to his gameplan. The first two sets this was evident as Andy was playing too passively and sitting back a la Djokovic did V Federer at the start of their semi. Now when things clicked for Andy in set three he was mentally tuned in as he had found the gameplan firing aggressive shots at Nadal and attacking the net and it worked and makes it all the more frustrating he never started the match in that way. Even into the fourth set he carried on in this vain and very nearly broke at the start of the fourth but couldn't quite pull it off and by the time Nadal got the break the match was well over three hours old and Andy's arduous semi began to take its toll.

Now Boris Becker last night, I reckon was pretty much spot on with his summary. He said Andy needs to get into the habit of playing that aggressive, hard hitting tennis from the start of slams. He rightly says that Andy relies on his natural talent and passive ways to guide him through the early rounds and it is very successful for him. However, it won't get him past Nadal, Federer and Djokovic and so when he faces them he has the hard task of finding his range etc and it takes him time to get that going and by that time his matches against the big guns are largely over. I cannot argue with that and hopefully Andy can take that on board.

When Andy brings his aggressive game to court it makes him a match for anyone and we saw that again (too briefly) last night. Now Andy definitely has the talent to win a slam it is just a matter of tying up the odd loose ends and bringing his full package minus mental lapses to these tournaments. Obviously, disappointed but considering he has had a better year at the slams than Roger Federer he hasn't had a bad year at all - just that slam still eludes him.

Very good analysis by Lk and Craig, Murray in my mind is still a bit away from challenging the top 3 and he has to break out soon. I fear that if he doesn't win one of the next few slams that he my not get another chance. I feel like to a large extent Andy has stagnated in the last couple of years. Personally, I think he never should have fired gilbert he made his biggest surge when he had gilbert on board. The guy is actually a very good student of the game despite some his antics. Andy needs to imitate another gilbert coached player AA as opposed to trying to out Nadal Nadal.

Right now it is time for Andy to think about a coach and soon. All the time he is devising his approach to matches does not offer any second person perspective that is needed some times. It is frustrating to see him time and time again just come up short. Some times you have to say the better players won when he does.

Under Gilbert he was able to find a solid serve and gave himself time to dedicate to improving his groundstokes. I think he felt that he had his serve in the bag and didn't need Gilbert.

In my view Andy is 'thinking' too much about factors outside of his game. The fitness, the diets. He needs to scrap that and look on court. Get himself hitting through the ball. Look at ways to develop and improve the FH and the second serve. Find something new and improved and effective.

I really just think he lost the match yesterday mainly by not playing the correct tactics. He sat back in those first two sets and was too passive and that suited Nadal as he was winning those rallies and in the process Andy beat himself up mentally about it. He then got angry and the aggression started coming out in his tennis and began to attack and bingo he had found the correct formula. He really must go on the all out attack against the top three because when he does he is capable of beating them but he must go on the attack straight away not when things are a lost cause. Whether he needs a coach for that I am not sure but I'd prefer him to have a top coach.

Andy needs to drop his current *in crowd* of hangers-on

and employ a World Class Coach asap!

It's all in the mind with Murray. Those that say he isn't good enough, I'm sorry but it just isn't the case. It can't be the case. He's 6th or 7th in the all time masters events winners, and has beaten Nadal, Federer and Djokovic too many times to be dismissed as not good enough.

We've all seen what the forehand can do, everyone knows what the backhand can do, and his first serve can be a bomb. Add that to his movement and variety and we should be talking about a multi-slam winner. We've seen all these assets working in big matches, but when did we last see then against one of the big boys in a slam match?

The quarter final against Nadal in Australia 2010 and the 2008 semi against Nadal in New York are the only two times I can think of. He played with belief and uninhibited.

I don't know what the answer is. He needs to bring his assets to matches that matter. Perhaps he needs to be a bit more clinical in the earlier rounds to save energy. Perhaps he needs to change his attitude. Beating himself up all the time can't possibly help.

It's bizarre because if the same 4 players are in the semis of the next masters event, I'd have reasonable confidence that Murray could beat 2 of these 3 players ahead of him. He's done it before. His record against these players in semis and finals of masters is great. Yet he's not as mentally strong in slams. We've seen in some of the masters finals this year how Djoko and Nadal have run themselves into the ground trying to win, so i don't buy that the others don't care as much in these events.

It isn't ability, so its got to be something else. His approach, his mentality, a lack of belief, can't handle the pressure.... Whatever it is I hope he can overcome it.

I'd say it is simply a case of him needing to be more aggressive all of the time and not just trying to bring that side of his game to the matches with the big three late in the match.

Danny_1982 wrote:It's all in the mind with Murray. Those that say he isn't good enough, I'm sorry but it just isn't the case. It can't be the case. He's 6th or 7th in the all time masters events winners.

Try joint 15th with Michael Chang.

Having not seen this match as it was the second semi I take it that Murray wasn't outclassed in terms of the skills that were on display and simply had the wrong strategy? If that's the case then I also agree that he should get a decent coach but it does make you wonder what he's been trying to do up till now. His development as a tennis player has been somewhat disappointing from what I remember seeing in 2008. At that time I thought he could have a game that would have the edge over Federer, Nadal and Djokovic; he even seemed mentally stronger back then than he is now.

Andy played amazing tennis specially in 3rd and 4th set. he did not get the tactics right in first and second set. The comeback was too late for him.
In 3rd set he was really dominating and rafa was looking clueless but in 4t set he was getting behind on his serve too many times.
TBF Rafa had a very easy draw this year too until he played Murray. I agree that a player can only play the players in a draw against him but I am sure players like Tipsy, Dolg, Cilic, Isner would have given plenty of problems to nadal.

Ah fair enough. This does though sound like another case of only trying to play aggressive once the cause feels lost. I was hoping by now he'd have learnt that at this stage of the tournament the cause probably is lost unless he plays aggressive from the beginning.

I think even if the players you listed could give nadal trouble or even take a set he'd have still gone through them fairly routinely and we'd be in the same situation.

Also he only started to take on nadal's backhand after the second set which was bit surprising. What I feel or see is that Novak has been able to turn this around as he does not let rafa whip that forehand from backhand corner and he neutralises that moonball on his backhand side with his double handed backhand very effectively.
Andy too needed to do the same and he has the game to do that as we saw in the 3rd set but I think his team needs a sack and a better coach needs to be hired. Tim Henman probably or Ivan Lendl if he becomes available.

Not really B_5th, for periods of the match I thought Nadal was on another level to Murray. What guys like Nadal have is that innate ability to reach a level of tennis in matches that cant be coached...those running FHs he pulls off are pure talent, no other word for it. And at key times Nadal gets more aggressive, not more passive. Murray seems to play a nuts and bolts game to me without the same type of fluidity, sure he's a great player but he's playing in an era where you have 3 amazingly good guys above him. His 2nd serve isnt good enough but he seems to just keep working on his fitness. Everytime I see him he seems more muscular...but thats not the answer to raising his game against the top 3. In reality I'm not sure what he can do, those guys are a level above him when push comes to shove, they find that something else that only true champions have - after all Murray has the shots but at times he looks agricultural against the top 3. People keep mentioning about the 08 and 10 wins against Nadal but Nadal was sub-par in both those matches...for example in 08 he was simply exhausted after his amazing clay-FO-SW19-Olympics run with no gas left in the tank. These arent meant to be excuses but we have to realise that when Murray plays an anywhere near 80-100% Nadal there's always only one winner....a 13-4 H2H doesnt lie and bear in mind that would look even worse if you took out US08, AO10 and Rotterdam09 where Nadal just about played on 1 leg (seriously).

He needs a coach for sure, but I'm not sure thats going to unlock the key to beating Nadal and Djokovic when those guys have an innate talent at performing at higher levels in the key moments.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Having not seen this match as it was the second semi I take it that Murray wasn't outclassed in terms of the skills that were on display and simply had the wrong strategy? If that's the case then I also agree that he should get a decent coach but it does make you wonder what he's been trying to do up till now. His development as a tennis player has been somewhat disappointing from what I remember seeing in 2008. At that time I thought he could have a game that would have the edge over Federer, Nadal and Djokovic; he even seemed mentally stronger back then than he is now.

I take it when you speak of 2008 you are largely referring to his 2008 US Open semi-final win over Rafa Nadal? Well the reason he was so impressive then was that he came with the correct strategy. Rain was forecast for later in the day and with it being Super Saturday he wanted a quick finish to the match so took the aggressive route which is the right route to beating Rafa and Djokovic and Federer. Andy just doesn't use that side of his game enough for many people's likings but if he did, as he did in the third and beginning of the fourth set last night he can compete with anyone. The key is getting him to do that all the time.

I agree with Lydian that second serve is area of big concern because top 3 specially Fed has a a very reliable second serve ( unless he is serving for the match)

lydian wrote:Not really B_5th, for periods of the match I thought Nadal was on another level to Murray. What guys like Nadal have is that innate ability to reach a level of tennis in matches that cant be coached...those running FHs he pulls off are pure talent, no other word for it. And at key times Nadal gets more aggressive, not more passive. Murray seems to play a nuts and bolts game to me without the same type of fluidity, sure he's a great player but he's playing in an era where you have 3 amazingly good guys above him. His 2nd serve isnt good enough but he seems to just keep working on his fitness. Everytime I see him he seems more muscular...but thats not the answer to raising his game against the top 3. In reality I'm not sure what he can do, those guys are a level above him when push comes to shove, they find that something else that only true champions have - after all Murray has the shots but at times he looks agricultural against the top 3. People keep mentioning about the 08 and 10 wins against Nadal but Nadal was sub-par in both those matches...for example in 08 he was simply exhausted after his amazing clay-FO-SW19-Olympics run with no gas left in the tank. These arent meant to be excuses but we have to realise that when Murray plays an anywhere near 80-100% Nadal there's always only one winner....a 12-4 H2H doesnt lie and bear in mind that would look even worse if you took out US08, AO10 and Rotterdam09 where Nadal just about played on 1 leg (seriously).

He needs a coach for sure, but I'm not sure thats going to unlock the key to beating Nadal and Djokovic when those guys have an innate talent at performing at higher levels in the key moments.

Sorry Lydian I disagree. You do not reach all four slam semis by having a mere 'nuts and bolts game' as you put it. This year he has had a better year in the slams than Roger Federer. For me it is clear that he starts matches against the big three too passively. His aggressive game (which I freely admit we don't see enough of) can beat anyone on its day. I think Boris Becker's thoughts were pretty spot on last night post-match.

Yeah was pretty much referring as you said CC. That semi is the best match I can remember him playing and maybe his biggest win at that level as it was the year that I think Nadal was at his best. First had an edge over Federer (excluding US open) then Djokovic and finally Nadal and you could see his improvement and confidence increasing with each tournament.

That is one area I agree CC - the need to be more aggressive.
BUT...I mean nuts and bolts in comparison to Nadal and Djokovic in the main.
Its my opinion that the top 2 can reach a level that Murray cant attain in slams particularly...no matter how much coaching or fitness he has you cant replicate some of the shots that the top 2 (and Federer) can come up with at key match-turning moments. And you cant just simply turn Murray into an aggressive player at all key moments of a match - some things are just innate in the heat of the moment. Murray is a great player, just not as great as the top 2 particularly. Again re: USO08 semi, I believe Nadal had nothing left in the tank because he had been on such a good run beforehand. As I say the 13-4 H2H doesnt lie...

The 13-4 translates as 6-4 on hard courts there and when you start excusing why Nadal lost it just opens doors for counter arguments of Murray injuries etc in certain matches against him.

Of course, as you say the other three can reach heights he hasn't quite managed at slams and their records prove that. However, when Andy has played his very best in these matches and been beaten out of sight it'll be a time to despair but I don't believe that has happened yet. Last night when tuned in in the third set he produced his attacking game and won the set but it was too little too late as he was just too passive early on. Now Andy (or someone in his team need to address that) and he just needs to be told to attack continuously from the start of a tournament instead of trying to save it until he meets the big guns. When that happens he can't expect himself just to turn into an attacking player in an instant that is why he should look to play every game, even those against Devvarman, Young, Lopez etc etc so he gets in the attacking groove for the bigger challenges ahead. Easier said than done I know but we've seen before he can do it but only in spits and spurts.

I suppose I'm not really sure what to make of Murray anymore. In 2008 I would definitely have said he had that champion quality you mentioned. I'm still leaning towards the point of view that if he could get it together mentally he could beat them all. When he's on form there's no shortage of spectacular shots coming off of his racket either. I also don't think this champion quality is as innate as you say though it is illusive to the point it would seem so. I think that one part that may be linked to it is desire and some of the matches I've seen have lead me to question his desire particularly AO this year.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Yeah was pretty much referring as you said CC. That semi is the best match I can remember him playing and maybe his biggest win at that level as it was the year that I think Nadal was at his best. First had an edge over Federer (excluding US open) then Djokovic and finally Nadal and you could see his improvement and confidence increasing with each tournament.

Now I am not sure if this was when he was still being coached by Brad Gilbert or after they parted company. The key to Andy's key performances are aggression. If he plays attacking tennis he can and does compete even with the top three. The massive problems for him are he doesn't do it enough, needs to work on second serve and also his mental blocks I believe by following the aggressive route those mental lapses would go.

consigliare wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:It's all in the mind with Murray. Those that say he isn't good enough, I'm sorry but it just isn't the case. It can't be the case. He's 6th or 7th in the all time masters events winners.

Try joint 15th with Michael Chang.

15th?

Player MS Titles
Rafael Nadal 19
Andre Agassi 17
Roger Federer 17
Pete Sampras 11
Novak Djokovic 10
Thomas Muster 8
Michael Chang 7
Andy Murray 6

No. Guess not!

Murray is a great player, just not as great as the top 2 particularly.

Lol you chat like there is a gap between the top 2 and the rest, when clearly Fed showed yet again that he is on the same level as the other 2...unfortunately old age and recurring back problems have counted against him in recent slams. Murray is on the same level with Tsonga, Sod and a few others these days...

not really. How many masters have Sod or Tsonga has won?

That is like asking how many sparring rounds did David Haye win before he inevitably lost in his big fight to the Klitschko brother... jeez try better.

that's what you think. your answer suggests that you have no clue about it.

Hang on so if Murray is definitely a level ahead of Tsonga and Sod; then do you also think Thomas Johansson and Gaston Gaudio are better players than Murray is??? Your logic is failing...

Sod if fit he can challenge Murray and even others. Magnus's exit has affected his performance to a large extent. Tsonga has been patchy in his career far too many times. He showed lots of promise but did not fulfill.

Murray has a better game than these two and that's definite. Murray has been in top 4 for nearly four years now. Although Gaudi did win FO but I do not remember as a significant player during his time. Gaudio has positive h2h against rafa if i am not mistaken and one of the few players who has beaten him in a slam.

Anyone watching Murray vs Nadal can see he's not in the same league at the most fundamental level. Nadal expresses himself on court and we see pure athleticism, someone entirely in their element. Watching Murray you see a stiff guy who's quite canny but has nothing of that sort of physical talent. It's always Nadal's to lose.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I get the impression that Murray has tried to imitate Nadals game with that use of moonballs; hitting the ball high over the net with easier control rather than his 2008/09 game which was to keep the ball flatter over the net, he beat Nadal in 08 and '10 by taking time away from Nadal not allowing him to be comfortable...unfortunately it's unlikely that he will ever go back to his flatter/quicker game which helped him into 3 finals

Agree with that. We will see Nadal tomorrow being more rushed than he was v Murray.

LK's OP is pretty accurate too.

wow wrote: Although Gaudi did win FO but I do not remember as a significant player during his time. Gaudio has positive h2h against rafa if i am not mistaken and one of the few players who has beaten him in a slam.

Wow, your constant attempts to belittle Nadal on this forum, and your repeated predictions of his demise, is making you look foolish.

And you should check your facts before making assertions like the one quoted above. The h2h between Gaudio and Nadal is 3-3, Nadal was aged 16 and 17 at the time of the defeats, and they never met in a Slam.

I would say to those to come back when Gaudio won a slam in an era containing GOAT Roger Federer, potential GOAT Rafael Nadal and world No.1 Novak Djokovic playing at their peak.

wow wrote:It is the case of so near yet so far. In 2008 Murray nearly destroyed Rafa and had his number. Since then he has just let it slipped. He needs to be more aggressive and thinking when he is playing Nadal. He has beaten Djoko before and has much better chances against him and federer.

Unforced errors need to be reduced but how even I don't know. A slam is badly overdue. 2008 first final and since then 3 years have been passed and it still seems very elusive.

Case of near yet so far?? How goes that?? You think Murray was anyway near to winning a slam in 2011 or anytime ever? You write like what we see on some tabloids from reporters who know not more than what the score card shows. Murray was 'so near yet so far ' in London 2010 semis, I can say that. But definitely not in any of the semis losses he suffered in GS this year, or the AO finals. So he wasn't like near to winning any slam ever. Yes but he was near to losing out early in FO, Wimby and US open.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

wow wrote:It is the case of so near yet so far. In 2008 Murray nearly destroyed Rafa and had his number. Since then he has just let it slipped. He needs to be more aggressive and thinking when he is playing Nadal. He has beaten Djoko before and has much better chances against him and federer.

Unforced errors need to be reduced but how even I don't know. A slam is badly overdue. 2008 first final and since then 3 years have been passed and it still seems very elusive.

Case of near yet so far?? How goes that?? You think Murray was anyway near to winning a slam in 2011 or anytime ever? You write like what we see on some tabloids from reporters who know not more than what the score card shows. Murray was 'so near yet so far ' in London 2010 semis, I can say that. But definitely not in any of the semis losses he suffered in GS this year, or the AO finals. So he wasn't like near to winning any slam ever. Yes but he was near to losing out early in FO, Wimby and US open.

I thought Wimbledon was reasonably close - there was one forehand he failed to put away in the 2nd set which, if he had done, might have produced a very different result. His failure to do that brought about an almost immediate change in momentum between the two players. Perhaps it was just waiting to happen anyway, but I think that a whole lot turned on that particular moment - especially given that Murray had what is usually the all-important 1st set in the bank.

EDIT - that is he was close to beating Nadal in the SF, the Final against Djoko in the form of his life would probably have been a different matter.

"Murray needs to go back in time. Go back to the period of 2005-2007. Where improvement was drastic and it showed in performances and ranking. What was the mindset? What has changed in his belief from then to now?"

You mean go back to the time when he was maturing from 'boy to man'. I think andy might find it hard to go back and redevelop himself.

Tom_____ wrote:"Murray needs to go back in time. Go back to the period of 2005-2007. Where improvement was drastic and it showed in performances and ranking. What was the mindset? What has changed in his belief from then to now?"

You mean go back to the time when he was maturing from 'boy to man'. I think andy might find it hard to go back and redevelop himself.

Ermmm I think you find I am suggesting re-capturing the mindset. A bit different then physical development.

murray will get lucky soon just a matter of time

I think even big Murray fans - like myself - have to accept the fact that there is a defficiency in the mental approach of Murray.

Having most of the shots and great movement and variety is not enough. He has to bring it when it really matters, and he hasn't done that. Tactics, approach, lack of belief... Not sure, but I personally think it is akll in the mind. Apart from 2 matches against Nadal he hasn't brought his best to the grand slam matches against the top 3.

Bizarrely, his masters record is fantastic in comparison. 7 finals and 6 victories, and that includes wins against all the top 3. More evidence - in my opinion - that the issue is in head rather than his game. Some say that the top guys don't care/try in these masters events, which i don't buy into personally. They may tank the occasional first or second round, but a final? Not for me.

Murray might never get there, with each passing slam that possibility grows. But I hope he manages to get one.