Murray needs to control his mind

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/15995087.stm

Old news to those of us here, but nonetheless correct.

The negativity is a killer at key moments. Imagine Andy at the end of that 2nd set in the WTF final had he been in Federers shoes. Would he have chanelled his focus and held his temper, or gone off on a bog diatribe against himself, maybe picked up a warning for language and faded?

It's a pity he has't got to grips with this; I'm sure it must be easier done than learning a new forehand or something.

I must say I don;t see teh mind as being Murray's problem. It's his legs, rather the regular injuries he has there.

True to a degree. But I'm not certain how anyone can be told to improve their mindset, when they've won 7 out of 8 Masters and win two-thirds of the finals they enter (amazing considering he has 'regular' injuries )

Finals wise, we can excuse 2008 - that shouldn't be seen as anything surprising given the build up to it

This year, he came across a player who would end up with one of the best win ratio's ever - again, tough luck

However, the 2010 Fed loss was a worry, because he had a chance to get back in the match and didn't take it


But I think we forget, who he was up against and I don't agree with the comment that he would have blown up if in Fed's shoes as he's had numerous matches where he's cruising, gets pegged back and eventually wins

McEnroe today in article entitled 'Seriously, McEnroe says Murray needs to eliminate the negative' - by Neil Harman in The Times:

'If you are going to get worked up and throw out a lot of this negativity, somehow it had better help you' he (McEnroe) said 'For a part of my career, I could use it as fuel, it helped me more, but I also know how destructive it can be especially against the kind of guys Murray is playing, who are relentless and can feed off that. It seems to me that at critical moments, against the top guys, it hurts him, because it is like an adrenaline injection for them.
I don't know him well enough to know why it goes the way it does, but it has to be counter-productive. He is so busy looking at [ his box] all the time that it's distracting. In fact, I don't need to commentate because that's what is happening during the match, he's commentating as he's playing'


The article then goes onto speculate about a full time coach, and that Llendl had said he would consider it and Jimmy Connors would not say no if the offer came, but that the smart money was on Darren Cahill having an even closer role. McEnroe comments that Cahill 'really is a coach' and that he has a 'pedigree second to none', He adds that 'perhaps at this stage [Murray] should get someone with real clout. You feel like it [turning the corner] is right there, you want to get over the hump. It's so close. The way it is now seems riskier'

Trouble with Murray is that he doesn't get enough easy points. Most points are a struggle so in a tight match he goes off on a temper tantrum. Just wish he'd take the ball earlier for a change and force the point more.

Why does Ferrer never win a Stefan Edberg award?

noleisthebest wrote:Why does Ferrer never win a Stefan Edberg award?

If I had £1 for the number of times I hear that.......

Marat Safin won two slams despite his temperament which was much worsethan murray's so I Don't buy into the mental thing holding back Murray. Tbh I dont know what's holding back ... Maybe he doesn't either

coolpixel wrote:Marat Safin won two slams despite his temperament which was much worsethan murray's so I Don't buy into the mental thing holding back Murray. Tbh I dont know what's holding back ... Maybe he doesn't either

I do: forehand

I don't know nitb,agreed he does not have a killer forehand to end a point but the rest of his game sort of compensates for that doesn't it? Every One has weak point.Nadal has the weakest serve amongst the top 4 and yet that hasn't held him back?

I agree with Mac and Becker. I think its in the head. I like his forehand nowadays. It can be a weapon and hurt the best players when he's confident and aggressive with it.

Also, I don't think it's quite as desperate a situation as is often made out and sometimes its easy to lose context with Murray. He is a major contender at 3 of the 4 slams every year. Yes he's lost his first 3 finals, but so did Agassi and Lendl... If he gets over the line, great. If not, it won't be for the want of trying... If anything, he wants it too much!

I admit I'm no longer convinced he'll get at least 1 major, but I'm still convinced that what is stopping him is his mental approach rather than anything technical with his game.

Darren Cahill and Brad Gilbert (Murray's ex-coach) are part of the ESPN broadcasting team for Tennis. Cahill does provide support to Murray under the Adidas auspices, though.

Cahill refused to coach Federer, because of the travel commitments and Cahill having a young family.

Federer's coach Annnacone, has much older children, divorced, and splits the duty with Luthi, even though the circumstances were different while coaching Sampras.

I agree with that Danny, he's doing well at getting to semis now but against the other top 3 he seems to mentally fold as much as anything else.

An interesting stat is that out of the 3 finals, and 5 other semi's he's reached in slams (thats potentially 40 sets of tennis), he won just 3 sets and none in the finals. Its not really getting better. Yet. I think he needs to seriously look at this mental preparation, and on-court thought process/behaviour. You feel he almost needs luck in terms of the other 3 being knocked out by others or injured to give him a chance of that 1st slam.

He just doesn't look like he believes he's going to win when he plays the other 3 in the slams, or certainly hasn't looked that way since AO2010 against Nadal (which i watched a rerun of the other day, and the steely intensity and positive focus he displayed was amazing - like a different person from the negativity and attitude he showed against Nadal in New York this year...)

Djokovic said the Davis cup win just made him realise that he has to go for his shots, and have total belief in what he's trying to do, and convince himself he's going to do it... He said it was like a moment of realisation. It's kinda what Murray needs.

Will he ever get there though? Who knows! I think a win against one of the big 3 in a slam could be a catalyst, but i just don't know if he believes enough to get it nowadays. I hope so as I think he's great to watch when the shackles are off and he relaxes.

Murrays "mental problems" are to a large extent caused by him thinking he is better than he is...

hawkeye wrote:Murrays "mental problems" are to a large extent caused by him thinking he is better than he is...

That is by far one of the worst attempts of wumming I have seen.

Like saying that is the case with Nadal succeeding against players not at their 'best'

hawkeye, I take it you will no longer complain about ridiculous posts about Nadal when you come out with guff like that.

hawkeye - I'm far from Murray's biggest fan, but that last remark of yours is truly woeful

hawkeye wrote:Murrays "mental problems" are to a large extent caused by him thinking he is better than he is...

Good grief...

Ok I should have given more expanation. I thought it was more obvious than it appears to have been

Sulking for three months after losing a match he had no chance in. Crying and sulking after another match he was easily beaten in. Constantly berating his team and himself when he makes errors, getting upset and overly defensive when commentators do their job and analyse his game, underestimating opponants. Other players are good and some are much better than him. Even the very best (Nadal and Federer) appear to be more ready accept their limitations than he is.

If he was more realistic he would be stonger mentally and probably be a better player.

hawkeye wrote:Ok I should have given more expanation. I thought it was more obvious than it appears to have been.

It is obvious. Anyone with half a brain can work it out. You don't like Andy Murray and will use any opportunity to articulate it. That is your choice of course, it just gets a little boring and means that nobody really takes you seriously when you say anything about him.

He needs to see this guy.

http://tinyurl.com/czlauj2

bogbrush wrote:He needs to see this guy.

http://tinyurl.com/czlauj2

Maybe he already has? Maybe that's why he freezes in slam finals.

hawkeye wrote:Ok I should have given more expanation. I thought it was more obvious than it appears to have been

Sulking for three months after losing a match he had no chance in. Crying and sulking after another match he was easily beaten in. Constantly berating his team and himself when he makes errors, getting upset and overly defensive when commentators do their job and analyse his game, underestimating opponants. Other players are good and some are much better than him. Even the very best (Nadal and Federer) appear to be more ready accept their limitations than he is. If he was more realistic he would be stonger mentally and probably be a better player.

What is your source for 'knowing' this as a fact?

Regardless of Hawkeye's opinions of Murray, her complaints about posters against Nadal are still valid and no less true. The situations are different anyhow. On the one hand you have an accepted level of anti-nadalism amongst most of the posters whereas with Murray it's only Hawkeye that doesn't like him. Everyone else recognises his GOAT potential

legendkiller

The dealings of the mind are hard to tie down with facts. It is just a theory based on evidence. Why do you think Murray played so poorly after his two slam finals?

break_in_the_fifth

Thankyou. I did think it was strange that I was accused of being biased because I like Nadal.

Hawkeye you're being accused of double standards, people don't think you're in any position to point out their anti-nadalism because of your anti-murrayism. These labels sound so stupid.

I'm not convinced he's a particularly talented player but I think one of the main things affecting his game in general is most likely shyness: being ill at ease on stage and worried about how he's seen. I think his peculiar antics make sense when viewed as a way to try deflect his unease at what he perceives as the critical gaze of onlookers. That ties in with the sort of tightness that seems to be a characteristic of his game and also the fact that his forehand, the shot that more than any other requires a fluid, open, relaxed motion, and total commitment, is his weakest shot.