Knee Jerk Reaction To A Murray Defeat

I see we have the usual kneejerk reaction to an Andy Murray defeat. The same old verbal gonnorhea that he is over-rated, is not a great returner of serve blah blah blah.

He lost a Masters Final against the world No.1 with a point to prove and the last time I looked Andy is ranked No.4 in the world. What is with this over-rated nonsense? After all can I therefore claim Federer is over-rated for a much earlier exit here? It is always the same when Murray loses a match - his impending doom is forecast. As far as I recall he exited in the first rounds of IW and Miami during his spring season last year whilst this year he has reached the Dubai and Miami Finals so his spring form is a vast improvement on last year.

I don't hide the fact Andy played poorly yesterday by his standards and Novak as the better player on the day deserved the win. However, to try to portray such a defeat when his game was so off as being impending doom I see as nonsense. Of course some do hold a grasp on reality here and take it as a defeat to the world No.1 - a pity that others feel the need to go way OTT on some comments but there you go.

Next up is the clay season - Andy has been written off already in this phase of the season after three semis on that surface last year. It should be interesting.

He's not overrated in today's rankings and poor era, but he's just not as good as a number 4 should be when you compare to the 80's and 90's.

He is the most likely of the top 4 to lose early in a big tournament because he doesn't have the ability that the other 3 obtain.

Murray won't beat any of the big 3 in a tournament bigger than 500 again.

Craig,

First off this post is going to attract a lot of people who hold the belief in the limitations of how good his game really is and also the posters who just don't like the guy or his game.

I feel however there needs to be acceptance on his game. The question that many posters will argue is that as a world number 4, how is he able to hold such a position despite no clay court titles to report of? Not so much the Slam but the lack of Clay Court success. These are facts that not even the most dedicated Murray fan can ignore. Yes he had his best season on it last year, but let's see if he can convert any of that progress into a return in a title. Some of this criticism has to be accepted. I know you will point to the 3 semi's, but I would be more inclined to point to 0 column in titles.

Now yesterday's final. Andy granted wasn't at his best. Looked sluggish and looked tired whereas his opponent looked a lot fresher having spent more time on court. It goes to show you can't make up for experience. Yes it must've been tough for Andy to mentally and physically prepare himself with the 2 walkerovers, but I feel that despite that it should not mask up how poor has play had been towards the end of the tournament. He was serving at 67% against Tipsarevic and still lost the first set who was serving at 45%. I am afraid that shouldn't happen at the top level with a top 4 player. Those stats are scary. What else is even scarier was the for the match his first dipped to 52% after 3 sets. That doesn't inspire confidence. Andy yesterday played some very tired and lazy shots. When someone like Djokovic who by all accounts wasn't playing anywhere near the level he did against Ferrer and Monaco can beat Murray with a much below par game, again it questions is Andy really that good?

Slower courts are a hinderance to Andy. Dubai showed that. His Queens titles show that. His performances at Wimbledon and US Open show that too. Put Andy on the slow stuff and he will struggle. He can generate the necessary power that the 3 above him can and hit a winner off the backfoot. If Wimbledon sped up, he could win it.

I am not sure how much improvement Andy can make that help him win on Slow Courts.

I would say that Murray was a very worthy number four. It's not often you have three people above you who have won a total of THIRTY ONE SLAMS. Yes, I spose it could be argued that if Andy was better he might have reduced that 31 figure himself. But we've had some number 4s and also some number 3s and 2s (Tommy Haas) who have never even reached a GS final.
It's not as if Murray relies on getting a lot of points at the minor tourneys, either. His Masters 1000 record is very good.

I haven't seen much assassination going on. To me Murray seems to be settled in as a #4 type player who will only win a Slam if there's some really big things fall his way but who will win other events, make loads of money and generally have a great career.

It's all about expectation.

I am not sure of the relevance of having won clay court titles. After all I'd hazard a guess that many fantastic players of the past and present have never won a title on clay but that doesn't stop them being accepted as greats of the game.

Yes Andy's serving was poor even by his standards and is an area he needs to work on. Surely, it speaks volumes his serve can be so poor against world the No.1 and yet still take Novak to a tie-break. Now if he had of served a heck of a lot better (as he did in Dubai) then who knows? My point being that as long as there are areas of his game that has room for improvement then there is still hope for the future especially since he is always there or thereabouts in slams for the last year and a bit.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am not sure of the relevance of having won clay court titles. After all I'd hazard a guess that many fantastic players of the past and present have never won a title on clay but that doesn't stop them being accepted as greats of the game.

Yes Andy's serving was poor even by his standards and is an area he needs to work on. Surely, it speaks volumes his serve can be so poor against world the No.1 and yet still take Novak to a tie-break. Now if he had of served a heck of a lot better (as he did in Dubai) then who knows? My point being that as long as there are areas of his game that has room for improvement then there is still hope for the future especially since he is always there or thereabouts in slams for the last year and a bit.

Craig that is sheer ignorance. That is like saying Clay doesn't matter. Andy is not at this present moment in time a great of the game. Even Sampras managed some Clay court titles. If we are aspiring Andy to do great things in the game, then he must overcome these obstacles.

We can't keep putting 'what if's' as a justification for failure in events that he can win. We do this all the time. Andy needs to improve, or Andy wasn't at his best. Andy when at his best has and can lose like he does when he plays bad.

Andy needs to expand the limits of his game and not crowd them into a little package that can only peak at favourable times.

bogbrush wrote:It's all about expectation.

Exactly. And I think all this 'Big 4' talk in the media does Andy no favours because it makes people expect him to be in the same class as the three above him. In terms of achievement (big gap) and ability (not so big but enough to matter) he is clearly behind them.

In fairness to Andy, he has never claimed to be as good as the other three and seems very aware of the need to improve to catch them.

He is certainly more prone to surprise defeats than the three above him but generally I think he finds his level. He gets to the later stages of most tournaments but gets beaten by a higher ranker player. This is exactly as you would expect but for some reason he often gets a hard time for it.

Just my 2 cents - I haven't seen many posts damning Murray for this defeat - more a sense of resignation really.

reckoner wrote:Just my 2 cents - I haven't seen many posts damning Murray for this defeat - more a sense of resignation really.

Very much spot on.

No but if you don't praise Murray at every opportunity CC will label you an anti-Murray devoid of any objectivity.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am not sure of the relevance of having won clay court titles. After all I'd hazard a guess that many fantastic players of the past and present have never won a title on clay but that doesn't stop them being accepted as greats of the game.

Yes Andy's serving was poor even by his standards and is an area he needs to work on. Surely, it speaks volumes his serve can be so poor against world the No.1 and yet still take Novak to a tie-break. Now if he had of served a heck of a lot better (as he did in Dubai) then who knows? My point being that as long as there are areas of his game that has room for improvement then there is still hope for the future especially since he is always there or thereabouts in slams for the last year and a bit.

Craig that is sheer ignorance. That is like saying Clay doesn't matter. Andy is not at this present moment in time a great of the game. Even Sampras managed some Clay court titles. If we are aspiring Andy to do great things in the game, then he must overcome these obstacles.

We can't keep putting 'what if's' as a justification for failure in events that he can win. We do this all the time. Andy needs to improve, or Andy wasn't at his best. Andy when at his best has and can lose like he does when he plays bad.

Andy needs to expand the limits of his game and not crowd them into a little package that can only peak at favourable times.

No I am not saying clay doesn't matter just that there are many greats of the game who have NEVER won a clay title. Andy Roddick springs to mind for a start and I never said Andy was a great of the game by the way. Of course 'what ifs' come into tennis for ALL players as we hear often with Federer and Nadal and Djokovic defeats. This reaction of Andy's failures come when he has won 8 out of 10 of his Masters Finals and a number of those has seen him beat one of the top three in the final. The key are for Andy to improve is his serve that goes without saying as that hinders the rest of his game in my opinion.

Tenez wrote:No but if you don't praise Murray at every opportunity CC will label you an anti-Murray devoid of any objectivity.

No not at all. I just like things to be kept in perspective. After all did you see me claiming Federer is over-rated because he lost to Roddick? No. And neither should that be the case here.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

reckoner wrote:Just my 2 cents - I haven't seen many posts damning Murray for this defeat - more a sense of resignation really.

Very much spot on.

I'm feeling a little short of friends on 606 at the moment lkv2 so I appreciate this!

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:No but if you don't praise Murray at every opportunity CC will label you an anti-Murray devoid of any objectivity.

No not at all. I just like things to be kept in perspective. After all did you see me claiming Federer is over-rated because he lost to Roddick? No. And neither should that be the case here.

But Craig, who is saying Murray is overrated?

Roddick is not what I would call a great of the game. I think that is a rather poor comparison.

Like reckoner said Craig, there hasn't been an all out criticism of Murray, just that his followers have accepted quietly really that Andy is not destined for the Slam success we all wish him.

There will be section of fans that will keep the faith and there will be others that will just watch him and support him, but just not have that expectation. There is no harm in that.

See the various threads started over the last day or so and you'll find the remarks.

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

reckoner wrote:Just my 2 cents - I haven't seen many posts damning Murray for this defeat - more a sense of resignation really.

Very much spot on.

I'm feeling a little short of friends on 606 at the moment lkv2 so I appreciate this!

not a problem reckoner.

I thought that was actually the most sensible way to sum up the feeling on the board about yesterdays match. I think some followers have accepted it won't happen for Andy and others still hold hope.

Craig

For an Andy Murray defeat, it is actually quite quiet. I am not naming names, but there are posters that simply just don't like him or his game. I have learned to accept their views and move on and try to be more positive about Andy's prospects. Some views are extreme and some may contain a degree of truth in them.

I don't feel there needs to be a thread to defend this recent defeat. Djokovic has taken just as much criticism as Andy and yet he won the damn thing!

Posters will always re-inforce their views, and yes it will feel like same old same ol again.

Whether it puts pressure on Murray or not, I DON'T think it incorrect to talk about him being one of the big four. OK, in slam terms he's very much fourth-best compared with the top three. But Andy is miles ahead of number five and has been top four, except for a very few Soderling weeks, for many, many months.
He's twice beaten Nadal in slams and not many players can say that.

Murray is pretty unlucky to have the three players he does above him - he is capable of beating all of them, but not consistently and much less so in best-of-five than best-of-three.

I remain optimistic that one of the chances he keeps making for himself at slams will pay off, but I'd agree with anyone who says that it's looking increasingly unlikely that he would be able to overhaul one, let alone two, of the three above him at a slam should they be on decent form, and unlike them he seems perennially to be more vulnerable to lesser players.

Spot on sirfred.

I'd understand it if there had been slams over the last three or so years that David Ferrer had won, Tsonga had won and Tipsarevic had won etc and Murray was still waiting but that just isn't the case. Standing in Murray's way we have:-

Novak Djokovic as world No.1 and who has been largely dominant over the last year or so.

Rafael Nadal who surely has a strong claim as the greatest clay court player of all-time.

Roger Federer seen by many as the greatest player of all-time.

Therefore, it will be no disgrace if Andy ends up slamless which some people just can't fathom out.

I expected a better match from Murray yesterday, but can't complain

He was very subdued and surprised by clever Nole tactics not to start the match firing on all cylinders like he usually does.

Playing conditions were atrocious and that probably contributed to a slightly lower energy first set, they may have been conserving energy for a potential 3 setter.

So when Murray lost that 1st set he had to turn it on, but so did Nole and it was just too much for Murray.

He did well to play in the final, despite the walkovers, ant that's all that matters at the end of the day.

By moaning about Murray, people simply show they seriously underestimate Nole's brilliance and buy a lot of media propaganda.

He needs to make a big push, as hard as he can, during the clay season and move up the rankings if he can.

I did say Murray's returning game was overrated Craig, only making 1 break point chance against Novak is not good enough, even Juan Monaco and weaponless Ferrer returned better.

Murray will be number 2 or 3 by end of year...bar injury. I have very little doubt about it. However, that won't make him as talented as some people think here. In a way, he reminds me Roddick though Roddick had a better FH but much poorer BH. Roddick had a better serve while Murray returns better but none of them can hurt from the baseline as they cannot loosen their arms. Too much muscling of the ball.

He cannot find angles and depth like Djoko, Nalby, Davydenko can. He is however extremely fast on his legs and his big frame gives him a good control of the ball, allowing to retrieve great balls but he doesn;t seem able to hurt from the baseline like you woudl expect any top 10 player to do.

Should the weather factor be taken into account. Yeah, I know how fit the players are but they started right in the heat of the day. And by all accounts it was pretty horrible conditions. Those dramatic and prolonged SFs and final at the recent AO were all night matches - or in the case of the final an all-night match !

Murray will be number 2 or 3 by end of year..

If Nadal's knee injuries continue then yes he can, I don't see Andy making the semi's of RG this time. Last years RG was a fluke for him.

A fluke??

sirfredperry wrote:Should the weather factor be taken into account. Yeah, I know how fit the players are but they started right in the heat of the day. And by all accounts it was pretty horrible conditions. Those dramatic and prolonged SFs and final at the recent AO were all night matches - or in the case of the final an all-night match !

Yes - That certainly can affect a match....but one was clearly better at handling the situation than the other and I felt that the more they were suffering, the more Murray benefitted from it.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Murray will be number 2 or 3 by end of year..

If Nadal's knee injuries continue then yes he can, I don't see Andy making the semi's of RG this time. Last years RG was a fluke for him.

You are in Simon Reed mode today JM. What the hell is going on?

Andy granted had the luck of the draw, but he still had to win and plus the injury which nearly forced him out.

I don't see Murray making the semis of the French either, and I think yesterday was a fairly big setback for Andy... but I agree with Craig that there has been a huge overreaction to the defeat.

When he beat Novak in straight sets a few weeks ago it was "just a bad day for Novak" whereas this result is not being viewed as just a bad day, but rather an example of Murray's limitations... How does that work? In Australia it was so close and Andy was a fraction from beating him, in Dubai he did beat him... Yet this is the match that shows his true level? Sorry, not for me.

The person who served and returned better won the match. But we have all seen Andy returning great, he does it most of the time. We've all seen him serve great, admittedly not as consistently but we know he can do it. We've seen him go for his forehand more (in the AO semi he hit more forehand winners than backhand winners). All things he didn't do yesterday, but all things he can do.

Poor world number 4? He's one of about 7 or 8 players that have ever reached the last 4 of every slam in a year, and is about 6th or 7th in the masters winners list...

It was a big disappointment how he played yesterday, but Craig is right... This is a knee jerk reaction to one defeat.

Thank you Danny and I couldn't have put it better myself.

We used to have the same thing, to a certain extent, with Henman when he reached, but failed to win, a final. Henman fails again, were the headlines, although there was much less coverage if he went out early in a tournament.
If you're making finals, albeit with a couple of walkovers, you're doing something right.

Danny_1982 wrote:
When he beat Novak in straight sets a few weeks ago it was "just a bad day for Novak" whereas this result is not being viewed as just a bad day, but rather an example of Murray's limitations... How does that work? In Australia it was so close and Andy was a fraction from beating him, in Dubai he did beat him... Yet this is the match that shows his true level? Sorry, not for me.

That's the priviledge Djoko has over Murray for being number 1 by a healthy margin and having won 5 slams. Had Murray beaten Djoko yesterday, then we could certainly start to question Djoko's loss in Dubai too. However he proved he was the sharper player again and deservedly number 1. Djoko played better yesterday and that prevented Murray from imposing his game like in Dubai.

sirfredperry wrote:Whether it puts pressure on Murray or not, I DON'T think it incorrect to talk about him being one of the big four. OK, in slam terms he's very much fourth-best compared with the top three. But Andy is miles ahead of number five and has been top four, except for a very few Soderling weeks, for many, many months.
He's twice beaten Nadal in slams and not many players can say that.

The thing I find odd about the whole 'Big 4' thing is that before Novak went into orbit, I don't recall it being spoken of. It was a Big 2 - Federer and Nadal. Then Novak started winning and, rather than becoming a Big 3, people suddenly expanded it to a Big 4.

Novak very obviously went through a huge improvement to join the 'Big' club but I don't see that as having happened with Andy. He was "very good but not a great" in 2009 and he is at the same standard now.

.

HM. I think the big four WAS mentioned before Nole's amazing run, in that the same guys were monopolising the top four spots.
We've had four years of the same year-end top four and, I think, FIVE YEARS of the same year-end top three. I think they've ALL improved - and that's why no one else is getting a look in.

I am a bit per-plexed by some of the comments. No-one is begrudging Murray's place as number 4 in the world or his achievements to date for the matter.

I just think people are starting to question how further Andy can go without major and significant improvements.

HM Murdoch wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Whether it puts pressure on Murray or not, I DON'T think it incorrect to talk about him being one of the big four. OK, in slam terms he's very much fourth-best compared with the top three. But Andy is miles ahead of number five and has been top four, except for a very few Soderling weeks, for many, many months.
He's twice beaten Nadal in slams and not many players can say that.

The thing I find odd about the whole 'Big 4' thing is that before Novak went into orbit, I don't recall it being spoken of. It was a Big 2 - Federer and Nadal. Then Novak started winning and, rather than becoming a Big 3, people suddenly expanded it to a Big 4.

Novak very obviously went through a huge improvement to join the 'Big' club but I don't see that as having happened with Andy. He was "very good but not a great" in 2009 and he is at the same standard now.

Murray has always been hyped to death by media.A lot of people have gladly swallowed it and they are the ones that give knee-jerk reactions.

If he was Serbian, Swedish or Argentian, nobody would give a hoot about the big 4.

Not his fault, but that's how it is.

Sir Fred - good point and duly taken. Those four have been extraordinarily consistent and in those terms are well ahead of the pack.

I think perhaps my issue with the comparison is that in those five years the top three have all had multi-slam years but Murray is yet to win even one. He is getting into the group on consistency rather than abundance of titles.

None of which I mean as a dig at Andy. My original point was really that he shouldn't get the grief he sometimes gets about losing to the top 3 because despite his inclusion in this 'Big 4', he shouldn't be viewed as their equal.

And it cuts both ways - he probably deserves more credit when he does beat them because he can only do that when he plays very well.

The big 4 have been talked about since 2009-2010 andthey have been the consistent top 4 since then and even if it tends to over-hype Murray it makes sense because they are placed in separate quarters of every draw but still frequently win against all-comers to make the Semi-Final line-up and monopolise the TMS and the Slams (albeit without Murray's help).

Murray deserves only positive reactions from every defeat he takes from now on as authorised by the Murray fanclub committee. He would win every slam if the other 3 werent so dam good.

Sincerely,
Craig

There was one point at about 3 games all, second set (mercifully I missed the first set) yesterday when Murray came in two or three feet inside the baseline after hitting an excellent serve and hammered an aggressive forehand winner - it spoke of intent..........for all of one point!

I keep wondering where is the Murray that USO 2008 promised he would become, the one that took that semi against Rafa by the horns and aggressively played in or just inside the baseline and looked to hit winners not just to run down every point?

Some heroic defense by Murray yesterday - but he never looked as if he was the one dictating, apart from the point above.

I don't think there are knee jerk reactions on here at all, more as someone said that of resignation - if he continues to play like he did yesterday, then he is just not going to be as good as we once hoped he would be - very sadly.

I agree, Murray took a wrong turn somewhere.

He would've won if it wasn't for Nadal giving him a bye. Can you imagine if Federer kept pulling out when he was due to meet Nadal on clay?

What a wussy this Nadal is.

time please wrote:There was one point at about 3 games all, second set (mercifully I missed the first set) yesterday when Murray came in two or three feet inside the baseline after hitting an excellent serve and hammered an aggressive forehand winner - it spoke of intent..........for all of one point!

I keep wondering where is the Murray that USO 2008 promised he would become, the one that took that semi against Rafa by the horns and aggressively played in or just inside the baseline and looked to hit winners not just to run down every point?

Some heroic defense by Murray yesterday - but he never looked as if he was the one dictating, apart from the point above.

I don't think there are knee jerk reactions on here at all, more as someone said that of resignation - if he continues to play like he did yesterday, then he is just not going to be as good as we once hoped he would be - very sadly.

Well what is it if it isn't knee jerk reaction? After all one defeat is all it was and in a match when Andy played poorly yet people choose to use this as a benchmark rather than say the match in Dubai. Bad day at the office and move on I say. Every player has them. Yes EVERY player.

Hi All,
First time to write here although reading your posts for quiet some time.
Sorry that my English is not as good as noleisthebest's, but nonetheless, I'm passionate about my countryman Novak just as much as she is.
I have been following the game of tennis for a long time and even played for a club in Belgrade (some competitions too) when I was younger. My first racquet was wooden Wilson Christ.
http://www.80s-tennis.com/pages/evertauto.html
So, a little bit of experience in my life makes me more comfortable to post a comment or two here. In addition, I see that this forum has more understanding of tennis world and tries to be as objective as possible comparing to many other forums.

I'm choosing this topic to introduce myself to you since it touches many issues surrounding tennis players, countries, personal believes…

My favourite personalities on the tour are of course, Novak, but also Murray, Ferrer, Tipsy, Ivo… These are the people that I would be comfortable to go out with and to have a beer, some honest chat, to laugh together… I do not need the superficiality of muscles to seduce me, or wavy hairs to think of someone's classiness… I like when someone is just simply, normal.

As players, I prefer the styles of Novak (of course), but also Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrer… and (its hard for me to say it loud) Federer, too.

In my opinion, Murray as a player is who deserves the 4th place. Nothing more, nothing less. You can guys try as much as you can to compare him to Nole, but I'm sorry its not realistic. Murray is far away from achieving what Nole has already: 5 GS, record last year, first ATP place, Davis Cup… When these two guys play against each other, its up to Nole what the final result would be. Unfortunately for me, I do not feel like this when Nole lets say plays against Federer.

The thing that Murray is lacking is offensive game. Its not the serve, as it was suggested, because for exmple Nole doesn't serve anything better then Murray does, but Nole still mostly wins. Of course, if they can all improve their serves, than even better. But to go back to my point, Murray can win sometimes playing this softly and waiting for his opponent to make a mistake, but that cannot make him number 1 (except if the first three players do not break their lags, all at the same time). Guttsy style of Nole, where almost every ball goes next to the line, drop shots, also comes with the skill and the place where he was born (another story). I'm not saying that Murray is not skilled, but the ability to keep the ball for a long time within a point is not a winning receipt. I also think that Murray is mentally strong and since he does not appear to be an arrogant man he should realize that his defensive style will not bring him fame. Yes, its harder to target the areas around the lines, but practice, practice, practice.

Over all:

Federer
...
Nadal
….
Novak
…
...
Murray
…
…
…
Next 10 players
….
….
….
….


Thanks for your time.

Craig, do you not think Murray's a little stuck in a rut at the moment? This tournament aside, he hasn't bettered his results from last year.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

time please wrote:There was one point at about 3 games all, second set (mercifully I missed the first set) yesterday when Murray came in two or three feet inside the baseline after hitting an excellent serve and hammered an aggressive forehand winner - it spoke of intent..........for all of one point!

I keep wondering where is the Murray that USO 2008 promised he would become, the one that took that semi against Rafa by the horns and aggressively played in or just inside the baseline and looked to hit winners not just to run down every point?

Some heroic defense by Murray yesterday - but he never looked as if he was the one dictating, apart from the point above.

I don't think there are knee jerk reactions on here at all, more as someone said that of resignation - if he continues to play like he did yesterday, then he is just not going to be as good as we once hoped he would be - very sadly.

Well what is it if it isn't knee jerk reaction? After all one defeat is all it was and in a match when Andy played poorly yet people choose to use this as a benchmark rather than say the match in Dubai. Bad day at the office and move on I say. Every player has them. Yes EVERY player.

I think you are being a little knee jerk yourself Craig.

I am just saying that over the last year, despite very good results, Andy Murray's game has plateaued imo - he isn't improving, or certainly not at the rate one hoped. It is how he lost that people are commenting on - not that he lost.

It always seems as if the match is on the others' raquets when he faces his peers in the top four, and yet that did not always seem to be the case a few years ago. His semi final in slam attendance record was impressive last year, but his performance in those semis was not one of a contender, so it is not using one match as a benchmark.

BTW I would be over the moon to be proved wrong.

hello touch(A)parabola - good to see another Novak supporter on here!