"My Forehand Is Very Different And I'm Hitting It Really Really Well" Says Murray

First topic message reminder :

This is what Andy Murray had to say about his forehand

"If you watch what it was like before and what it is like now, it is pretty major," the 24-year-old said. "It's not a major change but when you look at it, it's very different in terms of the way that I am moving my feet This week I have been hitting it really, really well and hopefully I can keep that up.... I never used to make that many mistakes on my forehand, it's just a bigger weapon now than it was before"

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=16799&zoneid=25

Is he correct?

socal1976 wrote:I think Jet lag probably did play a role. I for one have gone through that same jet lag from the middle east to the west coast of CA. It is absolutely the worst jet lag because it is 12 hours time difference. At 3 pm it feels like 3am. And it really stays with you for a week.

Still Roger and Novak seemed to adjust ok and win their matches in the first round after Dubai.

Maybe jet lag did play a part - just because some players' bodies adjust quickly does not mean that everyone will settle down in a new time zone as speedily.

lags72 wrote:
I personally reckon this is a blip, albeit an unwelcome one for him, but that he will bounce back pretty swiftly. The season has a long, long way to go with so much big stuff still to play for.

I agree that it is too early to be pessimistic about this year's chances. It was not looking great for Murray at this point last year and yet he went on to have a respectable season - disappointing because his semi final losses to Rafa in slams were not so competitive as might have been hoped for, but he still had consistently good results in all the slams.

Of course it is just a blip. He has had far worse defeats than this in his career and bounced back so I am not concerned. Let us remember that Garcia-Lopez is evidently no mug as he has been as high as No.23 in the world and has won titles in the past.

It's a blip, but one that falls within a pattern of blips.

I think he's just a blippy player, and my opinion is that it's because he has some faulty technique.

hawkeye wrote:What do you think Lendl would have done or said if he had been in IW?

Lendl provides a 'calming' effect, IMVHO. Last year was bad as well (Donald Young). - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=404#

Emancipator I don't think the appointment of Lendl has increased the expectation. Murray was dealing with a lot of expectation to begin with. I think before he had lendl the media pressure maybe was more difficult for murray. I am not saying that Lendl hasn't added attention, but it has settled certain problematic questions and criticisms for Murray. If he was having these type of losses and he didn't have a recognized coach I think the criticism would be even heavier. Having a big name coach does relieve the player a little bit of pressure. That is one of the benefits of having a well respected coach in your corner. I think if he Dani vallverdue or whatever as his head coach after a loss like this he would be getting way more criticized.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Murray has been on circuit for so many years now, but he is yet to play a clay final of any tournament.

He has played some good matches though. The MC with Nadal was good as well, despite his injuries.

IMVHO, 'jet lag' does not make sense.

hawkeye wrote:social1976

Well he's linked to a big name but how close is the link and is he a coach?

Garcia Lopez is a decent player so its a surprise but not that big a surprise that Murray lost. I wouldn't go as far as celebrating in fact I always feel a little sorry for his fans when it happens... and also I'm no "guy".

Yeah, not a good sign hawkeye that lendl hasn't really committed to the travel and doesn't seem to be with murray day in and day out on the road. I think in those long hard hours of coach being with a player that the player can really take the most away from a coach. I think it has been a big part of Djokovic's success, if Novak is playing Vajda is there. It can only make the relationship stronger and maximize the opportunities to learn.

laverfan wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Murray has been on circuit for so many years now, but he is yet to play a clay final of any tournament.

He has played some good matches though. The MC with Nadal was good as well, despite his injuries.

IMVHO, 'jet lag' does not make sense.

Laverfan actually in past years he hadn't gotten that deep in Dubai. And the timing does fit. A 12 hour jet lag time change really messes you up for 7-10 days. In particular the worst time of day for that jet lag is early in the afternoon when you are playing tennis it feels like you have been up all night and need to go to bed in the middle of the day. NOt saying that was the only reason he lost probably contributed because I have experienced that type of jet lag, it isn't like a few time zones change, it just wrecks you days 2-6 are bad and then each day after that gets a little better but it really is well more than a week or 10 days till you fully recover.

socal1976 wrote:

laverfan wrote: ... IMVHO, 'jet lag' does not make sense.

Laverfan actually in past years he hadn't gotten that deep in Dubai. And the timing does fit. A 12 hour jet lag time change really messes you up for 7-10 days. ....

How did Murray get to Dubai and why didn't he have Jet Lag in Dubai?

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

laverfan wrote: ... IMVHO, 'jet lag' does not make sense.

Laverfan actually in past years he hadn't gotten that deep in Dubai. And the timing does fit. A 12 hour jet lag time change really messes you up for 7-10 days. ....

How did Murray get to Dubai and why didn't he have Jet Lag in Dubai?

Jet lag.

I've heard it all now.

I've got the impression that the article's title is alive and changing......

Well there is less of a time change actually between eastern australia and the middle east and second there was more time between the end of the AO semi and his first match in dubai. I am not saying it was the only reason he lost it may have played a contributing role. That is all I am saying, but I am sure in a few weeks my critics will add jet lag-gate to Fogninni-gate to my list of my supposedly wild pronouncements.

I honestly think it's more foot in mouth by Andy. the more he "bigs himself" up i.e. talks big before a tournament then invariably the bigger the banana skin.

One day when he finally grows up he might just let the tennis do the talking and say something intelligent after the event.

Apparently Andy was at loss for words. "I am not sure what happened" he was quoted as saying. Well, let me help you out here. You lost.

I would like to congratulate newballs for reaching her/his landmark 666 post

newballs

With that sort of straight talking you would make an excellent coach for Murray. I believe Lendl has been a bit busy lately. Do you know much about forehands and serving? If so are you busy next week?

laverfan wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Murray has been on circuit for so many years now, but he is yet to play a clay final of any tournament.

He has played some good matches though. The MC with Nadal was good as well, despite his injuries.

Thats more like an optimistice Murray fan LF . Last year he had those 2 good matches on clay, I remember. But if he has played some good matches, He has player far more poor matches on clay. For a long time he kept saying Clay was his favorite surface, but I think was more to do with his initial training which were on clay. On paper clay should suite his game. But they don't, somehow. His win-loss record says so.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Clay Win–Loss 0–2 4–5 0–2 7–5 9–4 6–4 12–4

Career win-loss- 38–26

Percentage of wins: 59.38 %

This is below average for anyone who can play "well on clay" .

I would agree that Andy Murray struggled on clay in his early years (hence that low percentage of wins on the surface). However, his form of last year on the red stuff suggest he can be a contender on clay. Two semis in the Masters Series where he ran both Djokovic and Nadal close and IIRC he had a match pint against Djokovic. He then reached the semis at Roland Garros where he lost in three closely contested sets (6-4 7-5 6-4). That suggests he is getting to grips with the surface does it not as it was not just one remote good tournament but three on clay last year.

and IIRC he had a match pint against Djokovic

He never got to match point but he got to 30-30 at 5-4 with serve before bottling it as usual. When 2nd gear Fed beats your boy in straights at 30 year old you know it's time to admit he's not looking a slam winner. Andy gets so butthurt after losing an irrelevant ATP 500 and I see him repeating that with another early loss in Miami. Weak mentality.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

and IIRC he had a match pint against Djokovic

He never got to match point but he got to 30-30 at 5-4 with serve before bottling it as usual. When 2nd gear Fed beats your boy in straights at 30 year old you know it's time to admit he's not looking a slam winner. Andy gets so butthurt after losing an irrelevant ATP 500 and I see him repeating that with another early loss in Miami. Weak mentality.

Good try JM. However, I suggest you ponder on a few facts I pointed out last week. Dubai is about the quickest surface around and Federer had his ideal surface whilst if we believe some here Murray prefers slower courts. Well for Federer to only win in two tight sets in a match which Murray's serve was off (below 50% where in the rest of the tournament was at around 75%), his backhand was off and hit more unforced errors than is the norm for him plus it being Fed's prime surface then I wouldn't be so smug about such a win if I were you. I know you think this is nonsense but enlighten yourself with the match reports from across the globe and Federer is quoted as saying he felt he played great stuff (or words to that effect) whilst they do say that Murray couldn't produce the same form and consistency that we saw from the day before so even unbiased reporters realised Murray wasn't at his best and yet on Federer's favourite surface it was such a tight two sets. Think on.

Anyway back to the topic in hand....

Nore Staat wrote:I would like to congratulate newballs for reaching her/his landmark 666 post

If only I'd known I've have tried to say something really nasty!

hawkeye I'm too busy posting here to give Andy any tips I'm afraid? Do I know anything about forehands and serving. Not really but then again it never stops other equally ignorant posters having their equally blinkered opinions aired here.

For what it's worth I'm only going to post nice things about Andy from now on (i.e. expect an hiatus until or when he really wins something major).

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

and IIRC he had a match pint against Djokovic

He never got to match point but he got to 30-30 at 5-4 with serve before bottling it as usual. When 2nd gear Fed beats your boy in straights at 30 year old you know it's time to admit he's not looking a slam winner. Andy gets so butthurt after losing an irrelevant ATP 500 and I see him repeating that with another early loss in Miami. Weak mentality.

Good try JM. However, I suggest you ponder on a few facts I pointed out last week. Dubai is about the quickest surface around and Federer had his ideal surface whilst if we believe some here Murray prefers slower courts.[/b] Well for Federer to only win in two tight sets in a match which Murray's serve was off (below 50% where in the rest of the tournament was at around 75%), his backhand was off and hit more unforced errors than is the norm for him plus it being Fed's prime surface then I wouldn't be so smug about such a win if I were you. I know you think this is nonsense but enlighten yourself with the match reports from across the globe and Federer is quoted as saying he felt he played great stuff (or words to that effect) whilst they do say that Murray couldn't produce the same form and consistency that we saw from the day before so even unbiased reporters realised Murray wasn't at his best and yet on Federer's favourite surface it was such a tight two sets. Think on.

Anyway back to the topic in hand....

Why is Murray's everything always off when needed? Does this "off" excuse also valid for players whom Murray defeats? See how this sounds for the Dubai 2012: Berrer's game turned completely off at crunch times and hence he couldn't win despite some 1-1 sets and with momentum going into the 3rd. Then Marco's game was also off totally, couldn't do much. Berdych's forehand and serve was absolutely off and couldn't play his game. Djo was so much off the he could hardly get a forehand. Ahh.. Why is everyone's game always off?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

and IIRC he had a match pint against Djokovic

He never got to match point but he got to 30-30 at 5-4 with serve before bottling it as usual. When 2nd gear Fed beats your boy in straights at 30 year old you know it's time to admit he's not looking a slam winner. Andy gets so butthurt after losing an irrelevant ATP 500 and I see him repeating that with another early loss in Miami. Weak mentality.

Good try JM. However, I suggest you ponder on a few facts I pointed out last week. Dubai is about the quickest surface around and Federer had his ideal surface whilst if we believe some here Murray prefers slower courts.[/b] Well for Federer to only win in two tight sets in a match which Murray's serve was off (below 50% where in the rest of the tournament was at around 75%), his backhand was off and hit more unforced errors than is the norm for him plus it being Fed's prime surface then I wouldn't be so smug about such a win if I were you. I know you think this is nonsense but enlighten yourself with the match reports from across the globe and Federer is quoted as saying he felt he played great stuff (or words to that effect) whilst they do say that Murray couldn't produce the same form and consistency that we saw from the day before so even unbiased reporters realised Murray wasn't at his best and yet on Federer's favourite surface it was such a tight two sets. Think on.

Anyway back to the topic in hand....

Why is Murray's everything always off when needed? Does this "off" excuse also valid for players whom Murray defeats? See how this sounds for the Dubai 2012: Berrer's game turned completely off at crunch times and hence he couldn't win despite some 1-1 sets and with momentum going into the 3rd. Then Marco's game was also off totally, couldn't do much. Berdych's forehand and serve was absolutely off and couldn't play his game. Djo was so much off the he could hardly get a forehand. Ahh.. Why is everyone's game always off?

Always off? No not always off but when facts and stats show that his game was not at it's normal high standard then it is off or below par. Just to simplify things for you:-

Andy Murray's first serve percentage in the Final V Federer (48%) His tournament first serve average going into the final (I do believe said total was either 75 or 77%). Therefore a large dip in that stat for a start.

His backhand, normally one of his strengths leaked a lot of unforced errors and I do believe his unforced error count totalled around 30+ .

Check out reports from all over the world and they echo those stats and whilst Federer said:' I felt really good out there tonight. I felt calm knowing what I wanted to do. I think the surface, I used it to my advantage, which in the last year's final I couldn't or didn't. I think that was a big thing tonight as well." Elsewhere his play was called impressive, excellent etc etc etc. For Andy Murray a number of reports tap into the clear fact that he never reproduced his form from the day before when he beat Djokovic and I'd agree with that definitely. Therefore, considering we keep hearing how this pace of court suited Roger Federer very well (Fed fans opinion) whilst less suiting Andy Murray (I am not so sure there but there you go) then for Andy to lose in two tight sets I'd say that was pretty decent all things considered. If only if only if only eh?

hawkeye wrote:This is what Andy Murray had to say about his forehand

"If you watch what it was like before and what it is like now, it is pretty major," the 24-year-old said. "It's not a major change but when you look at it, it's very different in terms of the way that I am moving my feet This week I have been hitting it really, really well and hopefully I can keep that up.... I never used to make that many mistakes on my forehand, it's just a bigger weapon now than it was before"

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=16799&zoneid=25

Is he correct?

Recent events suggest otherwise
Straight sets loss being broken twice in the second set...

CaledonianCraig wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

and IIRC he had a match pint against Djokovic

He never got to match point but he got to 30-30 at 5-4 with serve before bottling it as usual. When 2nd gear Fed beats your boy in straights at 30 year old you know it's time to admit he's not looking a slam winner. Andy gets so butthurt after losing an irrelevant ATP 500 and I see him repeating that with another early loss in Miami. Weak mentality.

Good try JM. However, I suggest you ponder on a few facts I pointed out last week. Dubai is about the quickest surface around and Federer had his ideal surface whilst if we believe some here Murray prefers slower courts.[/b] Well for Federer to only win in two tight sets in a match which Murray's serve was off (below 50% where in the rest of the tournament was at around 75%), his backhand was off and hit more unforced errors than is the norm for him plus it being Fed's prime surface then I wouldn't be so smug about such a win if I were you. I know you think this is nonsense but enlighten yourself with the match reports from across the globe and Federer is quoted as saying he felt he played great stuff (or words to that effect) whilst they do say that Murray couldn't produce the same form and consistency that we saw from the day before so even unbiased reporters realised Murray wasn't at his best and yet on Federer's favourite surface it was such a tight two sets. Think on.

Anyway back to the topic in hand....

Why is Murray's everything always off when needed? Does this "off" excuse also valid for players whom Murray defeats? See how this sounds for the Dubai 2012: Berrer's game turned completely off at crunch times and hence he couldn't win despite some 1-1 sets and with momentum going into the 3rd. Then Marco's game was also off totally, couldn't do much. Berdych's forehand and serve was absolutely off and couldn't play his game. Djo was so much off the he could hardly get a forehand. Ahh.. Why is everyone's game always off?

Always off? No not always off but when facts and stats show that his game was not at it's normal high standard then it is off or below par. Just to simplify things for you:-

Andy Murray's first serve percentage in the Final V Federer (48%) His tournament first serve average going into the final (I do believe said total was either 75 or 77%). Therefore a large dip in that stat for a start.

His backhand, normally one of his strengths leaked a lot of unforced errors and I do believe his unforced error count totalled around 30+ .

Check out reports from all over the world and they echo those stats and whilst Federer said:' I felt really good out there tonight. I felt calm knowing what I wanted to do. I think the surface, I used it to my advantage, which in the last year's final I couldn't or didn't. I think that was a big thing tonight as well." Elsewhere his play was called impressive, excellent etc etc etc. For Andy Murray a number of reports tap into the clear fact that he never reproduced his form from the day before when he beat Djokovic and I'd agree with that definitely. Therefore, considering we keep hearing how this pace of court suited Roger Federer very well (Fed fans opinion) whilst less suiting Andy Murray (I am not so sure there but there you go) then for Andy to lose in two tight sets I'd say that was pretty decent all things considered. If only if only if only eh?

What are you talking CC, I was not questioning whether Andy's game was OFF or not that you have to bring out arguments like reports from all over the world. I'm asking is it anyways possible for any other player to have a OFF game besides Murray or its it only him that can suffer from it? I'm asking is its anyway even remotely possible that the opponents that Murray defeated coming into Dubai Final ( Berrer, Marco Chude, Berdych, Djokovic ) also might be having an OFF day just like Andy did in the Dubai finals. I guess no, its only Andy's game that is allowed to be OFF. They all played their absolute best, but Murray being so far superior player compared to all of them produced an immaculate performance crushing them completely to reach the finals with the loss of only 1 set.

Now in the finals, his game was completely OFF which you along with reports all over the world have so vehemently proved. Fed's game was at its absolute best, which he himself said as you pointed out. Andy lost in 2 tight straight sets, which is understandable of course. Had it not been for his OFF game, or rather even a tad less OFF, he would have wiped the fast courts of Dubai with Fed's ashes.

So conclusion. If Andy's game is ON he wins , if its OFF he loses. This irrespective of what game the opponent plays, the match is always on ANDY's racquet.


I always tell you to remember what you say, because we will go down with that conversation when the times comes. Poor memory doesn't help you. Also this talks about OFF game comes from a fair level minded Murray fans who complains about people ( especially Fed fans ) not giving credit to players where credit is due. Now look at your yourself CC and try to be fair. Try hard, it won't be easy for you.

So from now on never bring out that "not giving credit where credit is due" thing again. Ever.

Oh please rotla I always give credit where it is due as can be seen below from my orginal post on the Dubai Open Final thread:-

CaledonianCraig wrote:Just too many uncharacteristic unforced errors from Andy especially on the backhand which has killed his chances. Andy has never really came with any sort of game plan and stuck to it. No complaints about his focus which was pretty good but too many elements of his game were not firing and so lost. Roger Federer played a solid game and came out the deserved winner. Not too deflated by the defeat considering how awful his post-Australian Open form was last season but would have felt better had Andy won a set. A match that had its moments and well done to Roger Federer.

It was just so predictable, Andy Murray's conqueror Garcia-Lopez losing in the next round in straight sets (to a world ranked No. 72 teenager).

I think that shows the technical flaw in Murray's serve CC....that when the test against Fed came his serve went right down. It's not a shot he can simply bang down like others without thinking almost...same with his 2nd. FH to a degree too. He needs to drill those shots over and over and over....Lendl should get him serving 1000s of balls in sessions to minimise the aberration in matches, but it can't eliminate it. Think this will always make Andy more inconsistent than the other top 3.

Typical that GL should lose next round....suggests Murray lost the match rather than GL on great patch of form?

Well okay. Firstly CC, giving credit is never an issues with me. I'm not on 606v2 for distributing credits to players, I am here to discuss tennis and if I feel, I'll write something. Hence I don't even expect or demand or complain anyone for it. So its up to you to give or not give any credit.

But can you answer my other questions about the other players whom Andy defeated en-route to Dubai finals, having their game OFF?

But this excuse giving is not going good with me. This OFF excuse applies to all players or is it only Andy that gets it? You are trying to portray as if game is always on Andy's racquet . If his game would have been ON in the finals, he most certainly would have won ( which shows from how close those 2 set losses were despite an OFF game).

Now do you believe that if Andy's game is at its absolute best, he just can't lose because Andy's top level is higher than anyone's? Is this what you are trying to say?

Can you answer my points?

Leave this credit giving BS, I'm never bothered by anyone giving credit or not to any player.

Hi Lydian, I didn't watch the match, but those that did said Murray's timing was just off, that he failed to find any rhythm, and that he ended up losing meekly (no fight). All suggesting that he hadn't adequately acclimatised to conditions and was unable to acclimatise as the match progressed.

Nore Staat wrote:It was just so predictable, Andy Murray's conqueror Garcia-Lopez losing in the next round in straight sets (to a world ranked No. 72 teenager).

Even more damaging for Murray especially after bragging about how much more lethal he thinks his improved forehand is

Hi NS, I'd agree with that, and just said similar on the other thread in that he hasn't put the hours in practice transitioning from Dubai to IW which is quite a change to go from one of fastest HC to one of slowest...that requires a huge shift of timing...it just brings out those flaws in his game when he doesn't prep and groove his shots enough. That said it hasn't affected Fed and djokovic the same but then their technique is more fundamentally sound than Murray's so they can adjust easier with less practice.

But Harrison is no mug. He is on his way up. Remember, he is only 19....just imagine him in a couple of years with better timing, confidence, fitness and experience.

When Murray's confidence falters for a second, or his concentration - whatever it is, that is when he struggles to find a first serve.

I think Lydian's suggestion of serving 1000s and 1000s of balls in practice sessions is the only answer - building positive muscle memory so that the body is in the right position without over thinking everything.

The trouble with this kind of thing is that we all wonder now if the serve is going to hold when he is in a tight spot, and he must be thinking the same which is counterproductive in itself.

Excited to see Harrison come through last night.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Well okay. Firstly CC, giving credit is never an issues with me. I'm not on 606v2 for distributing credits to players, I am here to discuss tennis and if I feel, I'll write something. Hence I don't even expect or demand or complain anyone for it. So its up to you to give or not give any credit.

But can you answer my other questions about the other players whom Andy defeated en-route to Dubai finals, having their game OFF?

But this excuse giving is not going good with me. This OFF excuse applies to all players or is it only Andy that gets it? You are trying to portray as if game is always on Andy's racquet . If his game would have been ON in the finals, he most certainly would have won ( which shows from how close those 2 set losses were despite an OFF game).

Now do you believe that if Andy's game is at its absolute best, he just can't lose because Andy's top level is higher than anyone's? Is this what you are trying to say?

Can you answer my points?

Leave this credit giving BS, I'm never bothered by anyone giving credit or not to any player.

Whether the other players Andy's game was off you'd need to ask fans of those players who know their games better. However, considering he was ranked well above the rest of his opponents (barring Djokovic) and was expected to win and did it is fairly safe to presume that Andy Murray playing at a high level has too much for those players with all respects to them. (barring Djokovic again)

Of course all players have off days and I don't believe I have ever said they didn't.

If Andy's game is at its absolute best then he is capable of beating any player in the world as can be seen by his career records against the very best players in the world. Consistency is the key and stronger mental attitude which Andy must strive for.

Fine if you don't want to give credit to anyone barring Roger Federer but doesn't that make you look a tad bitter?

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Whether the other players Andy's game was off you'd need to ask fans of those players who know their games better. However, considering he was ranked well above the rest of his opponents (barring Djokovic) and was expected to win and did it is fairly safe to presume that Andy Murray playing at a high level has too much for those players with all respects to them. (barring Djokovic again)

I just wanted to know if you could see an OFF game in anyone other than Murray or not. Clearly you can't. As you stated the fans of those players would know better about their player's game than you. You are just make unfair fantasy assumptions about their game and making assumption that whatever their level pf play be, Andy's game must have been superior because of his ranking being "well above the rest (barring Djokovic)". If ranking would have mattered so much then why the excuse about Murray's being OFF against Fed considering Fed's ranking has always (bar the 5 mins last year ) been above Murray. Shall I say its fairly safe to presume that Fed's level of play will always be too much for Andy irrespective of whatever he (Andy) will bring to court. So his being OFF or not doesn't matter as it showed in Dubai finals. This is what you have used for other players. But Only your dear ANdy gets to play the OFF game card, well said CC.

If ranking meant so much that Murray's game would have to be too much for them, then why did Murray lost to GGL (ranked #92 ), Donald young, Bogomolov jr., kevin anderson.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course all players have off days and I don't believe I have ever said they didn't.

They do, but they all have their best game when losing to Murray because Murray is such a great player, their being ON or OFF wouldn't have mattered. The only thing that matters is MUrray's game being ON or OFF, its all on his racquet.

CaledonianCraig wrote: If Andy's game is at its absolute best then he is capable of beating any player in the world as can be seen by his career records against the very best players in the world. Consistency is the key and stronger mental attitude which Andy must strive for.

This again you assumption and love for Murray that is speaking out. Forget others, if a Berdych brings out his top level, Murray get blown out to dust. Then you start the excuse "Murray's game was OFF". Murray's top level is not a world beater, CC. He needs the opponent game being OFF as well, he alone can't do it on his own game.

You asked me in Feb about my prediction for his FO and year 2012. Go read what I said and see how is it turning out to be.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Fine if you don't want to give credit to anyone barring Roger Federer but doesn't that make you look a tad bitter?

I have already given him the credit what I think his game is worth of. I won't write any song about it.

I really see no point conversing with such bitterness as there evidently is in your posts about Murray.

I don't post excuses about Murray when he gets beat and really when you talk of my love of Murray it is absolutely nothing compared to your love of Roger Federer. I post here merely to defend against the nonsense posted about Murray. I have no illusions or disillusions about Murray. Time and time again on here and on BBC 606 I have said Andy Murray may win a slam or he may not and time alone will tell. Now if I were on here 24/7 spouting promises of what he will win as some other posters do on here I would understand your feeling that I have a strongly biased mind. Evidently, I don't and merely post to balance up a lot of unfounded and unsubstatiated stuff posted here against Murray. I don't need to go into what he has achieved in the sport and his standing in the sport but suffice to say that anyone with a balanced mind without bias would say Murray is going to be a top contender at slams (barring injuries) for some time yet so my views on him are not so very far from reality unlike others.

CaledonianCraig wrote:anyone with a balanced mind without bias would say Murray is going to be a top contender at slams (barring injuries) for some time yet so my views on him are not so very far from reality unlike others.

Completely agree.
I have a bet with Fernando (global moderator). I say Murray will win a slam before the year is over.

Fingers crossed that you win that bet Gav.

If not I have to add (loser) to my username for 2 weeks
(Likewise he does if Murray does win a slam this year)

I think the point I am trying to make, is that it is not just Murray fans who think he can do it. Craig knows I am not Murray's biggest fan, but I can see he has the tools to win a slam and its only a matter of time. Then once he gets the first many more will follow.

I am not a Murray fan but I think he can do it too. Though the AO has actually shown me he is further away from it than I thought!

CaledonianCraig wrote:I really see no point conversing with such bitterness as there evidently is in your posts about Murray.

How goes this? I didn't use any abusive language or anything. I'm just debating on points.

CaledonianCraig wrote: I don't post excuses about Murray when he gets beat and really when you talk of my love of Murray it is absolutely nothing compared to your love of Roger Federer.

If you don't then what have you been doing all this while on this thread. Shall i post the quotes you have put numerous times after his Dubai finalsloss and IW 2nd rnd loss. How OFF his game was, how low his first serve % was etc when you didn't even see the IW match. Earlier you wanted to state those as facts, but now they turn out to be excuses, you are denying using any of those. And how does Roger Federer comes in here?

CaledonianCraig wrote: I post here merely to defend against the nonsense posted about Murray.

Bring out what is the nonsense posted about Murray. things don't become nonsense just because you say so. You were defending his Dubai loss, with excuses like his game being OFF, but still he manged to run close to Fed in the finals trying to imply that otherwise Murray would have won. This is clear degrading wins of other players. You want to give this OFF game excuse to Murray, where as other players don't get it who lose to Murray. Ahh how will Murray's game be great if he wins against them if their game is OFF. No, no way, they played their absolute best, yet Andy trounced them. You don't know about their game , make assumptions and degrade the wins of other players. perfect.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I have no illusions or disillusions about Murray.

You don't? Shall we bring out the conversation that I told you to remember after AO because I'll bring it up again, when you said Murray is already ahead of Federer because of his 5 set loss to #1 player, compared to Fed's 4 set loss to #2 ranked player. You were told by some not to go down that silly road, yet you continued.

That was your illusion. You have a lot of other illusions like best of Murray beats everyone. I see not even a best of GGL was needed to put him off is straight sets, forget some others.

CaledonianCraig wrote: Evidently, I don't and merely post to balance up a lot of unfounded and unsubstatiated stuff posted here against Murray.

BRING THOSE UNFOUNDED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED stuff. They don't become UNFOUNDED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED just because you say so. Answer them wrong if you can. Thats the point of a debate.

Discussions are fine and debate when people are open and fair-minded people. Others who have made up their mind about players for whatever the reasons are never going to be moved on this. I'll continue my posting in a balanced fair-minded way as I have always done giving players the credit they deserve regardless of what other people might prefer me to post. Fair and like-minded people I can openly converse with but others it is clear there is just no point.

Raiders remember posting this afrer AO semi :

"Novak played bad againts Ferrer and yet Ferrer couldn't take a set, I agree. Andy took 2 sets from Djo, but this can also mean Djo played even worse than what he did againt Ferrer. Like I said before if Andy had played great tennis and still lost in st. sets because Djo played better on some key points ( like Fed vs Djo AO 2011 semis) I would have seen him closer to Djo. But what can be concluded from a match where both player played bad making errors after errors. Does Murray think that Djo will play this poorly in all his future matches and hence he will have chances like he had in this match? No way."

To summarise Murray only took Djokovic to 5 sets because Novak's game was off.

Then you pan CC for saying Murray's game was off against Federer. Think your showing a lack of consistency here.


I do however agree with your point that someone being off or not playing to their best is an excuse to detract from the other players efforts. In my simple outlook singles tennis matches up two opponents on the same court, in the same conditions. Therefore the player who plays best over the duration of the match wins. Yes they can get the occasional lucky net cord or mis-hit that goes in but the scoring used in tennis means the effect of these on the result should be very small.

Federer beat Murray in Dubai because he played better tennis, Garcia-Lopez beat Murray in IW because he played the better tennis, Murray took two sets off of Djokovic in the AO because he played the better tennis in these two sets (Djokovic played better in the other three), Murray beat Djokovic in Dubai because he played the better tennis. These are professional players they know the levels they need to play at and if they don't more often that not they lose.

Looking forward to you debating with others when they come up with their excuses for their favourite player losing or having a tight match.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Discussions are fine and debate when people are open and fair-minded people. Others who have made up their mind about players for whatever the reasons are never going to be moved on this. I'll continue my posting in a balanced fair-minded way as I have always done giving players the credit they deserve regardless of what other people might prefer me to post. Fair and like-minded people I can openly converse with but others it is clear there is just no point.

"We all see 12 oclock at our door" A french saying that means we all think of ourselves as being right, fair-minded and so on. ...But it doesn't mean we are.

Well I can only leave that up to you to judge but check out the definition in the dictionary and argue that I don't fall into that category. I give credit where credit is due for all players and yes I do criticise elements of Murray's game as well.

Calder106 wrote:Raiders remember posting this afrer AO semi :

"Novak played bad againts Ferrer and yet Ferrer couldn't take a set, I agree. Andy took 2 sets from Djo, but this can also mean Djo played even worse than what he did againt Ferrer. Like I said before if Andy had played great tennis and still lost in st. sets because Djo played better on some key points ( like Fed vs Djo AO 2011 semis) I would have seen him closer to Djo. But what can be concluded from a match where both player played bad making errors after errors. Does Murray think that Djo will play this poorly in all his future matches and hence he will have chances like he had in this match? No way."

To summarise Murray only took Djokovic to 5 sets because Novak's game was off.

Then you pan CC for saying Murray's game was off against Federer. Think your showing a lack of consistency here.

Calder, . I roughly remember this quote of mine. But this shouldn't be brought as a standalone post, I didn't make any declaration like that. It was one of the responses in the conversation that was going on. You need to bring out the whole context in which this was spoken. So to summarize, you have to go through the post and how it was going on. If you want to talk about it, you can continue on the thread you picked that quote from, and I promise I'll reply to every single point. I believe the topic that being discussed there was different.

Calder106 wrote: Looking forward to you debating with others when they come up with their excuses for their favourite player losing or having a tight match.

very well.


[/quote]

By the way Calder I wouldn't call what I posted was anything like an excuse. Yes it would have been if I had claimed Murray had a stubbed toe, an illness or was put off by windy conditions etc. That would be deemed an excuse. What I posted was a post-match analysis using match stats and player's post match comments so all factual stuff. Feel free to debunk the facts ie dip in first serve, an increased amount of unforced errors etc as those were the facts of the match and not excuses. I see a difference there.

I'm not debunking any facts. However I don't agree with using them to devalue the fact that the better player on the day won. Don't you think that any of these dips were caused by the pressure that the person at the other side of the net was exerting.

Calder check out my posts on the final and I'm sure that I said Federere deserved the win and do believe Murray said so as well in post-match interviews. I never tried to claim otherwise but offered post-match analysis of the match using stats available. The better player won on the day but look deeper at how both players played and you understand how we get results in matches.