Puzzled

First topic message reminder :

I am puzzled by posters views. We have those that say Andy Murray is poor on clay courts and say his clay court form last season was a freak or lucky according to one poster. However, the predictions for Monte Carlo and almost everyone tips Murray to at least get to the semi-finals and the odd one or two tip him for the final so how can this be the case if he is so useless on clay? Peculiar so which is it? Is he one of the top clay courters in the world or very poor. After all surely if poor on the surface he wouldn't be reaching even the quarters in Monte Carlo considering the quality field assembled.

He is still too passive on clay. He has improved a bit on hard courts, standing closer to the baseline and taking the ball early more often, but he doesn't do that on clay and i wonder if he'll ever move well enough to have the confidence to take the initiative on this surface.

But this is very much a clay problem for Murray. On a hard court, he very rarely plays 2 metres behind the baseline and bunts it back nowadays. In the Djokovic semi final in Melbourne, he hit more winners than Djokovic. You can't do that if you are playing passively and stood 2 metres behind the baseline.

The problems that he has on clay are nowhere near as big a problem on the other surfaces, because he moves so much better and has much more confidence. So he isn't back to the drawing board as a player, but is back to the drawing board as a clay court player specifically.

Danny i'm not convinced a lot of these age-old problems are specific to clay. The passive nature to his play and the self doubt and frustrations need sorting out whatever the surface.

I agree newballs, Murray seems prone to these passive losses. Still...have to hand it to Berdy who did play well, when he's on form he is a real handful with those flat shots and hard serve...he's also under-appreciably fit...have you seen the size of the guys legs?

I agree he can improve in all of those areas on a hard court newballs, but they are a bigger problem on clay and his results show that.

But lets be honest, he looks miles off on clay. He doesn't look comfortable at all on the surface. His movement is a bit sluggish and consequently he tries to hang on and plays defensively. He's tried to be much more aggressive on his forehand this year, but yesterday the forehand was in 'get it back' mode. I watch all Murray's matches and on clay I think its like watching a different player.

The scoreline flattered him a bit yesterday, as Berdych played well enough to win it in straight sets.

This latest performance by Murray was a big bag of fail... Djokovic showing how it should be done as we speak.

Lol reckoner...you mean with the racquet?

Reading a few others comments - kudos to Berdych for beating Murray. I suppose Berdych also has aspirations for winning tournaments and possibly a grand slam title.

lydian wrote:Lol reckoner...you mean with the racquet?

lol yeah I guess I spoke at the wrong time...

He does seem abit in and out today (understandable...), but Berdy is always a handful, you have to love his groundless when he's 'on'

You watch the way Berdych is playing today, and how be took it to Murray yesterday and you wonder why he isn't putting more pressure on the top 4 and posing more of a regular threat at masters and slams.

There's not many holes in his game when he's on it.

Yeah it's a shame about his grandfather... takes guts to continue in the tournament. Then again they say it can help to focus on something other than the bereavement.

Berdy takes the first set.

Agree reckoned, people deal with bereavement in different ways and focusing on his game might allow him to focus on things. But he's doing well to keep focused all the same...but he does seem unhappy today.

laverfan wrote:

Ally Mills wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

1. 2nd serve...still throwing it not far enough infront of him and other basic technical aspects...and he's too passive on it
2. Too passive in the rallies...sometimes he's too reliant on being the counterpuncher

truth x1000

He's a WTA style player in an ATP arena.

I mean absolutely no respect to Murray but i agree with you a little Josiah. Sometimes his defensive play does remind me of Wozniacki

Respect? or Disrespect?

Laverfan, thanks for the correction. I meant 'no disrespect'.

Ally Mills wrote:
I mean absolutely no respect to Murray but i agree with you a little Josiah. Sometimes his defensive play does remind me of Wozniacki

mwahahahah I totally preferred the original version!

reckoner wrote:

Ally Mills wrote:
I mean absolutely no respect to Murray but i agree with you a little Josiah. Sometimes his defensive play does remind me of Wozniacki

mwahahahah I totally preferred the original version!

Reckoner, naughty naughty Just kidding

Murray to me is a bit puzzling. He must drive his fans nuts with his up and down play and flashes of brilliance. I think it comes back to his second serve. The forehand can be very good and dangerous. But that second delivery is continually getting picked on. In the AO semi vs. Djokovic won less than 30 percent of his second serves. He doesn't play off of his second serve as well as Nadal, Roger, or Novak. That to me is the margin right now between Murray and the other 3 guys. Murray with a good second serve would be nearly unbeatable. Thank god as Novak fan that Murray's second serve is attackable.

That is why there is always hope if you are a Murray fan. There are areas of his game that needs improving such as service percentages and playing a more consistently aggressive game. Yet he has already reached three slam finals and won a host of Masters Cups but there is room for more improvement.

What is so disappointing about Murray is how he has plateaued (unlike the others in the top 3)

When you think about 2008 and meeting Federer in the USO final and the hopes that Murray fans had for him because he had the beating of Fed several times in Masters series. He lost tamely, but it was put down to exhaustion after playing Nadal and also the fact that he had been given the later semi on Stupid Saturday. In fact many were very quick to dismiss Fed. There was great hope for Murray,in other words, should these two players meet again in a slam final. Federer certainly seems to have turned around the match up, and Djokovic too.

I don't know that Murray can improve any more. He has a wonderful A game but he has a very indifferent B game and that's where he hits problems because it is not always possible to access your A game and the great champions are able to scrape through on their B games if necessary.

So time please would you say there are no areas of his game he could improve? If not then I fully agree with you but I can think of two areas straight away that I can see can be improved. Serve and being more aggressive more of the time. We have just seen as recently as the Australian Open how close he got to beating Djokovic in a slam semi and Novak was worked just as hard as against Nadal so he really isn't that far away that he can be totally written off.

Whether he can work on or find those improvements is another matter but time alone will tell.

Of course there are areas of anyone's game that they can improve - but it is more difficult the older a player gets because one builds 'muscle memory' and Murray's muscle memory has a default mode to counter punch when he sometimes needs to be braver. His head is telling him what to do, but it is difficult to force the feet to do the unexpected in clutch situations I suspect.

I don't understand why he doesn't pack a bit more of a punch on the 2nd serve I must admit.

The best analogy of Murray's game is that he is akin to a computer at the moment. He has always been a counter-puncher but is now trying to be reprogrammed into being an attacker. That is the struggle that I see going on. Counter-punching his game can beat 99% of the players in the world but it will not beat Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. That explains why he has won so much in his career and has such an impressive grand slam record in terms of slam finals and semis reached and also explains why he has never won a slam yet.

Holding out hope for Murray to become an attacking player seems like an exercise in futility, sadly.

I'm afraid CC that this just comes over as wishful thinking. I'll refer you to this quote from early 2008:

"He's going to have to grind very hard for the next few years if he keeps playing this way. He tends to wait a lot for the mistake of the opponent. He stands way far behind on the court and that means you've got to do a lot of running.

"I gave him the mistakes today but I think overall, over a 15-year career, you want to look to win a point more often than for an opponent to miss. That's what served me well over the years but who knows, he might surprise us all and do it for 20 years.

"I don't think he's changed his game a whole lot since I played him in the Bangkok final (2005). Not that I'm disappointed but I really would have thought he would have changed it in some ways."

At the end of the day Murray just isn't as good a player as the top 3 technically...his 2nd serve has some basic technical glitches that I'm amazed persist to this day....like not throwing it far enough forward or to the right....plus there are other glitches mid-way through the throwing action. These areas can be worked but it is getting late in the day to overcome bad habits...and the test always comes at clutch moments.

He is a counterpuncher...and too passive at key phases...particularly against 'lesser' players. And I wonder if being reprogrammed to be an attacker is going to help or hinder him...he may become a halfway house, too much tinkering with fundamentals can be an issue too. As I say, and others too, he has a good record and can beat most players...just not the top 3 in biggest matches, although he was awfully close to beating Nole at AO this year. He needs to maximise his strengths, not try to reinvent himself.

reckoner wrote:Holding out hope for Murray to become an attacking player seems like an exercise in futility, sadly.

Not at all. I would agree there would be no hope if he had never made slam finals and semis but as long as he is reaching those stages there is always room for hope. The day when the slam sems and final appearances dry up is when the hope dies.i

So that's another 5 or so years of articles saying"Murray is about to win a slam this year because he has improved so much" to look forward to?

reckoner wrote:So that's another 5 or so years of articles saying"Murray is about to win a slam this year because he has improved so much" to look forward to?

Err where exactly are you seeing those quotes of Murray about to win a slam? Not on these forums anyway.

I think the ongoing 'story' around Murray will always be when just is he going to win a slam? We all know he's good at getting to slam semis....and lives up to his top 4 ranking...but if anything he's going backwards beyond that as Nadal and Djokovic dominate the finals...what can he do to break into that duopoly...and even beat Fed along the way as well. I'm not sure where the leap is going to come from other than misfortune to the top 3. He did push Djokovic close at AO but when that crunch came at 5-5 in 5th he wilted...

reckoner - if that comment is directed at CC personally I do feel you're being unreasonably harsh

When I'm paying to watch a player Murray would not be my first choice, although I am certainly much happier to see a British guy finally holding down a place in the top five (and for so long) than not.

I can remember a view expressed only recently by CC which was along the lines of I believe Andy is capable of winning a Slam but if ultimately it never happens then so be it

I'm not happy with CC when he tries to turn things back to the critics by unduly slating players who have achieved more in the game. But..... I do wholly understand his instinctive wish to defend his favourite player in the face of a barrage of negative comment, and for the most part I find his assessment both of Murray's current standing and his future prospects to be balanced & realistic.

reckoner wrote:I'm afraid CC that this just comes over as wishful thinking. I'll refer you to this quote from early 2008:

"He's going to have to grind very hard for the next few years if he keeps playing this way. He tends to wait a lot for the mistake of the opponent. He stands way far behind on the court and that means you've got to do a lot of running.

"I gave him the mistakes today but I think overall, over a 15-year career, you want to look to win a point more often than for an opponent to miss. That's what served me well over the years but who knows, he might surprise us all and do it for 20 years.

"I don't think he's changed his game a whole lot since I played him in the Bangkok final (2005). Not that I'm disappointed but I really would have thought he would have changed it in some ways."

Barry Cowan referred to this infamous piece of irritability on the part of The Mighty One recently during Indian Wells - he said that Fed had been very unfairly criticised for this and that as he had at the time, 11 slams (I think), Murray should have looked at it as free advice.

It was curmudgeonly of Fed but I think he had gone past the point of self control with gloating British journalists chortling both over the prospect of Murray's success and Fed's imminent downfall, and he, in typically Swiss fashion, told it like it is.

It was both prescient and wise (though not perhaps very nice) of Fed - a fact which Judy Murray acknowledged but Murray swept aside with disdain - he would have done better to listen to his critics four years ago when his game was developing and not his flatterers imho.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

reckoner wrote:So that's another 5 or so years of articles saying"Murray is about to win a slam this year because he has improved so much" to look forward to?

Err where exactly are you seeing those quotes of Murray about to win a slam? Not on these forums anyway.

Oh just wait for Wimby to roll round...

reckoner - there will be rash predictions and 'quotes' I'm sure, but I trust that you - presumably a keen follower + fan of the sport - are not implying that other, fellow followers + fans are somehow to be held responsible for the musings of the tabloid media and the poorer quality pundits .....??

time please wrote:

reckoner wrote:I'm afraid CC that this just comes over as wishful thinking. I'll refer you to this quote from early 2008:

"He's going to have to grind very hard for the next few years if he keeps playing this way. He tends to wait a lot for the mistake of the opponent. He stands way far behind on the court and that means you've got to do a lot of running.

"I gave him the mistakes today but I think overall, over a 15-year career, you want to look to win a point more often than for an opponent to miss. That's what served me well over the years but who knows, he might surprise us all and do it for 20 years.

"I don't think he's changed his game a whole lot since I played him in the Bangkok final (2005). Not that I'm disappointed but I really would have thought he would have changed it in some ways."

Barry Cowan referred to this infamous piece of irritability on the part of The Mighty One recently during Indian Wells - he said that Fed had been very unfairly criticised for this and that as he had at the time, 11 slams (I think), Murray should have looked at it as free advice.

It was curmudgeonly of Fed but I think he had gone past the point of self control with gloating British journalists chortling both over the prospect of Murray's success and Fed's imminent downfall, and he, in typically Swiss fashion, told it like it is.

It was both prescient and wise (though not perhaps very nice) of Fed - a fact which Judy Murray acknowledged but Murray swept aside with disdain - he would have done better to listen to his critics four years ago when his game was developing and not his flatterers imho.

I totally agree - that whole team of coaches concept really didn't pan out did it. And yeah there was outcry galore when TMF said it and it was uncannily prescient.

lags72 wrote:reckoner - there will be rash predictions and 'quotes' I'm sure, but I trust that you - presumably a keen follower + fan of the sport - are not implying that other, fellow followers + fans are somehow to be held responsible for the musings of the tabloid media and the poorer quality pundits .....??

Of course not... but I have read a fair bit of guff about Murray over the years and sadly this wasn't entirely confined to the Beeb and tabloids!

I should say - I would love to be wrong about this and see Murray develop a lights out attacking game this year - but hold zero hope that this will happen!

time please - a good post, puts those particular comments by Federer and the fall-out that followed into proper perspective.

I note that the quote comes from early 2008 and, IIRC, it was in the immediate wake of a Murray victory over Federer, not sure which tourney (?)

Because Fed had actually lost the match, it was seen by many (although - significantly - not by Judy M. you say) as sour grapes on his part. Hence the total misinterpretation of what was a genuine, honest and realistic assessment by one who had already seen and achieved so much more in the sport. I would imagine that Murray would perhaps have maybe a handful of titles to his name back then, whereas Fed would have already amassed ten times as many.

All top pros are mostly keen to 'play their own game' and to develop + display an air of confidence. In that respect (and considering also his very respectable h2h vs Fed), I can understand why Andy couldn't bring himself to say "oh yes, you're right Roger, I hear what you say and I'll take your advice on board..."
However your point about listening to critical comment rather than sweeping it aside with disdain is well made.

Federer was able to look at the long-term picture in giving the benefit of his vast experience and success. Andy was by contrast taking a much narrower and ephemeral view. Whilst he has since gone on to add to his ATP title count (and impressively so) , he might perhaps in some ways now be paying the price for not listening to - and reflecting on - what the Great Man had to say ........

There does still appear to be a part of Andy that wants to go back into his shell when he feels under pressure regardless of surface. Factor in his unease on clay at the best of times and you realise why Lendl's got his work cut out before the French Open to turn his head around somewhat.

It would be expecting miracles then to think Andy's going to better or even match his SF appearance last year but Rafa's new found belief (and relief no doubt) at beating Novak today makes the potential finalists of at least the French pretty obvious. Moving on from that Andy's going to have his work cut out (along of course with Federer) to ensure we aren't going to get sick of the sight of those two in the slam finals for the rest of the year too.

newballs - I agree that he can still play safe in the pressure moments. Perfect example is the AO semi, where he went from 2-5 in the fifth to 5-5 and 15-40 on Novak's serve with some brilliant attacking tennis. With those 2 break points, and a third break point in that game, he did not go for a single winner. As a Murray fan it was infuriating that he had got himself to verge of victory playing a certain way and then reverted to type.

It's a huge source of frustration because he can do it, but doesn't in the real pressure moments. It also gives Murray fans hope, because we've seen him do it.

As for Murray at the FO, I would be really surprised if he got to the semis again. He is nowhere near as good on this surface, and the results show that. I think quarters would be a reasonably good result for him.

Danny_1982 wrote:newballs - I agree that he can still play safe in the pressure moments. Perfect example is the AO semi, where he went from 2-5 in the fifth to 5-5 and 15-40 on Novak's serve with some brilliant attacking tennis. With those 2 break points, and a third break point in that game, he did not go for a single winner. As a Murray fan it was infuriating that he had got himself to verge of victory playing a certain way and then reverted to type.

It's a huge source of frustration because he can do it, but doesn't in the real pressure moments. It also gives Murray fans hope, because we've seen him do it.

As for Murray at the FO, I would be really surprised if he got to the semis again. He is nowhere near as good on this surface, and the results show that. I think quarters would be a reasonably good result for him.

Spot on. And sadly he doesn't seem to be going the right way to rectify this.

Spot on. And sadly he doesn't seem to be going the right way to rectify this.

Yes and no. The way he played for 50-60% of the match is the Murray blueprint for the future. We haven't seen that kind of performance from him in a slam semi or final since he beat Nadal in New York.

Ok, when he had the match in his hands he didn't do it. But its a step forward all the same because we're used to him not doing it at all in these matches.

I am puzzled by posters views. We have those that say Andy Murray is poor on clay courts and say his clay court form last season was a freak or lucky according to one poster. However, the predictions for Monte Carlo and almost everyone tips Murray to at least get to the semi-finals and the odd one or two tip him for the final so how can this be the case if he is so useless on clay?
------------------------------------

oh dear!

What is so funny JM? Did Andy exit at the first stage in all three events? No of course not. That would quantify him as being useless on clay. Sure the clay season has been disappointing compared to last year but still has a quarter-final in amongst all the disappointments. Certainly not his strongest surface but hardly qualifies him as useless.

CC I hate to sound like a Murray basher but here goes anyway. Oh dear! Andy and his poor back . Andre put up with his for years and got on with it.

For heavens sake Andy shut up. grow up and act like a man.

What an odd comment. Totally unrelated to the topic in hand.

He doesn't really prove your point of his clay prowess, does he though? Still this isn't where he plays his best, he might aswell lose 3rd/4th round or earlier in the RG to keep the pressure off him for the rest of his season, where he normally produces high level performances.

Useless players on clay as has been said on here that Andy is then surely it is certain he will exit at the First or Second Round at RG. Will he? I'd be gobsmacked if he did. Being honest I cannot see him repeating a semi-final spot at RG this year though but that certainly doesn't mean he is useless on clay.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Being honest I cannot see him repeating a semi-final spot at RG this year though but that certainly doesn't mean he is useless on clay.

I disagree. I expect him to at least get to QF/SF at RG. It may be a 1-2-3-4 SF lineup at RG this year.

laverfan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Being honest I cannot see him repeating a semi-final spot at RG this year though but that certainly doesn't mean he is useless on clay.

I disagree. I expect him to at least get to QF/SF at RG. It may be a 1-2-3-4 SF lineup at RG this year.

JM... Let us see what happens at RG.

Murray can get to the SF, but its looking unlikely at the moment.