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.

Federer was lucky to win the FO. The main rival and conquerer was taken out early. Plus he had to deal with the pressure of being installed as the one to win it and that it was his to lose. He had 2 5 setters in which he could've gone out to Haas or Delpo.

Some have argued he is unlucky to have met Nadal in the previous 4 finals.

The draws last year in response to Murray, yes he had some good luck because of how the draw panned out and for him to have met players like Gil, Berrer, Bolelli, Starace, is very fortunate.

Players do have luck on their side sometimes.

Is it his fault if others lose on their way to a potential meeting with Murray? No of course not. They had their chance and blew it so those better players who lost before meeting Andy had to have been beaten by those players who went on to face Andy and he beat them. That is all he can do and he did it.

It does not explain away how Andy stretched probably the greatest clay courter of all-time (Nadal) in the semis at the Monte Carlo Masters to three sets and the same for Djokovic who many are tipping ahead of the French Open and do believe Andy had a match point against Novak in that semi. So if luck was in anyway involved then he would definitely have lost much more meekly in straight sets 6-2 or 6-3 at best but wasn't. Why?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Is it his fault if others lose on their way to a potential meeting with Murray? No of course not. They had their chance and blew it so those better players who lost before meeting Andy had to have been beaten by those players who went on to face Andy and he beat them. That is all he can do and he did it.

I've always said [ my posts even years back on 606 and 606v2 will show this] that its not anyone's fault that they get fortunate in matches. All player will get some good fortune sometime or the other. Players themselves acknowledge at times that their opponent deserved the win just as much and they (the winners) were fortunate today to get a W. But being fortunate or lucky doesn't mean they become great players. Fed was fortunate that his biggest nemesis on clay was out and its brought him a great opportunity to win the FO. But it can't be said that his clay results are due to good fortune. He has 5 Slam finals, 4 of them consecutive, 3 Masters on clay beating Nadal on 2 and numerous clay finals only to lose to one guy who is a bad match-up for him. Then also even in those losses, Fed was very competitive.

CaledonianCraig wrote: It does not explain away how Andy stretched probably the greatest clay courter of all-time (Nadal) in the semis at the Monte Carlo Masters to three sets and the same for Djokovic who many are tipping ahead of the French Open and do believe Andy had a match point against Novak in that semi. So if luck was in anyway involved then he would definitely have lost much more meekly in straight sets 6-2 or 6-3 at best but wasn't. Why?

Is this the reason behind your opinion that Murray's clay results last year were not due to good fortune? Just because he 'streached' Nadal in semis of MC? Just because he 'streatched' Nadal in 1 match, he becomes a better clay courter? If he stretched Nadal in that match, did he not lose in st. sets to Bellucci the very next tournament? So where did his 'improved' game disappeared against Bellucci ? Ahh.. a 3 set loss to Nadal means he is playing great on clay and a st. sets loss to Bellucci in the very next tournament means nothing? Did you even see that MC semis match and the Madrid loss?? If a player loses a match 0-6 7-6 0-6, will you call that the losing guy "stretched" the winner in the match? Murray didn't lose with that score, but Nadal always looked comfortable to take it in his own hands in the 3rd set. A match with 13 break of serves in 3 sets is more indicative of rugged play from both players than great tennis.


Win or loss doesn't always count when measuring performance improvement. A player may play worse and still win. Conversely he may play far better but end up losing. Look at the performance, the play.... and not just the end result.

And you tell me to get my facts correct where as the fact is you keep making those mistakes all the time yourself. You accused me of saying something about Murray when in fact I said that about Almagro. Another error here now. Murray never had a match point against Djo in that semis? He was serving for the match and was 2 point from winning, but had NO match points. But its fine... just like good fortune, poor memory is no one's fault.

If you know your tennis raiders you will know that Nadal doesn't get stretched on clay by talentless clay courters and lets not forget that was a aemi in which Murray had time outs for an arm injury. So he lost against Bellucci? No disgrace considering he is a clay court specialidt and so I was a point or two out on the Djoko match? The point was that he took one of the very best clay courters to the brink and yet you would still have us believe that was all luck. Sorry that won't wash with me. I would openly accept it if it was a one off tournament we were talking about here but he reached THREE semis on clay. Now you may say who he beats and how he wins means more than the results but that is a dangerous road to go down as you could delve into every player's past triumphs and dig out eady routes to victory but at the end of the day the players can only beat those out in front of them and that includes Murray.

Apologies again raiders about my misquoting you.

Well.. this debate will keep going on. Thats what we are here for. Anyways I'm not looking to stretch it any further for the moment. MC is going on, today's play will start in about 1.5 hours. Lets enjoy tennis

CaledonianCraig wrote: Apologies again raiders about my misquoting you.

No problems. No issues.

Of course. I would hazard a guess that Monte Carlo is the most beautiful setting on the circuit. The stadia perched on the hillside looking down on the Mediterranean. Enjoy sadly am off to work now so will miss the action.

CC,

Because of the emphasis of Andy's performances against Djokovic and Nadal last year on Clay, my question to you is would you much remember Andy for his narrow losses or for his narrow victories?

One of the things that get's overlooked with Andy is this, he made the 2008 US Open final and for a debut final it is difficult for anyone to face the modern day greatest player. Has he improved over that time in the Slams? I would say no. My argument is that despite Andy being a top 4 player in the world, look at when Federer, Djokovic, Nadal all won Slams or in Novak's case participated in his first final. The all improved dramatically.

When Murray first burst on the scene, the type of player he was looking to become was based on the perfect prototype which was Nadal and later Djokovic. The problem is that the skill set he has acquired is now the standard requirement in the modern tennis era. Andy not so much now faces a challenge to win a Slam, but to also hold on to his ranking and position in the game.

Going back to Djokovic. Look at what he did post Australian Open 2008. New racquet, new coach, increased fitness, new diet, participation in the Davis Cup. Now look at what Murray did post US Open. Improved fitness, worked on service action, changed diet. See Djokovic acknowledged the weaknesses in his game which were the serve which was vulnerable. Andy has weaknesses on his FH and 2nd serve which has been noticable for the last 5 years. While the FH has shown some small improvements, the 2nd serve hasn't. Andy documented years ago he was trying to mirror the service action of Sampras, yet the only player who I see closest to replicating the action is Mardy Fish.

Take Andy's 2009 season. Be widely recognised as one of the best defenders in the game, he was blown off the courts by big FH'ders. That for me was a massive step backwards for him from 2008.

This isn't me slating Murray because he is one of the most committed guys on tour. This me saying that actually despite the successes Andy has had, is he really as good as we expect him to be because the improvements he has felt he has made has not culminated in Slam success or even success on Clay. It really is a case of limitations and everyone agrees that a guy in his position can win a Slam, I don't think he is a bottler, I just don't think he is as good as I thought he was.

Andy's chance to win a Slam does unfortunately rest on Nadal, Federer and Djokovic not being opposite him in the final of a GS. Del Potro had to do it the hard way and had he not been affected by injury, Andy may not be in the position he is right now. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had the luxury of not facing players who had previously tasted Slam success to win their maiden Slams. Andy doesn't have that luxury because of the standards set by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Andy has to push himself beyond his levels if he really is to be a top 3 player.

I don't want Andy to be remembered in the same light that Henman was. The unlucky bridesmaid to top players at Slams. Henman is forever remembered for Wimbledon 2001 than any other achievement in his career.

Fair enough lk.

However, I cannot agree that he is more in s battle to hold his No.4 spot than breaking into the top three. He is far closer to the latter than the former.

As for him not being as good as you thought, well perhaps you just under estimated the Herculean players that stand in his way? Let us remember that Roger Federer is widely regarded as the greatest player of all-time, Rafael Nadal must surely be the greatest clay courter of all-time and top that off with Novak Djokovic who COULD go on to becomr one of the greatest playrrs of all-time and then we get to see the task facing Murray. It becomes an even bigger task when we see flaws in Andy's game such as second and first serve not being great at key times and him going through spells of being too passive. If he can dort out those flaws and stick to an aggressive gameplan then who knows? However,I am perhaps not so critical as my expectations and realisation of his difficult task has long prepared me for the reality that he may never win a slam.

Murray troicki going on. Long rallies and all ending in the nets.

CC,

Do you think Andy has explored all aspects of his game? Under Maclaghan for me I didn't see the sharp improvements I would've expected for someone who fired one coach to appoint a whole team. The rest of his team have helped enromously. Jez Green has worked wonders. Under this reigime it has helped him compete, but if he wants Slam success he needs to go beyond 'compete' become even more aggressive. I just wonder if Andy has done all he can.

Being more aggressive is the key but like I said elsewhere if something like that doesnt come nsturally to him then it is a hinderance. I do feel his serve is key as in when it is firing and he is confident in it the aggression comes more naturally but when the serve dips it inhibits the rest of his game - just my opinion mind.

Murrays serve and aggresion is always powerful...



...when playing on the Wii

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC,

Do you think Andy has explored all aspects of his game? Under Maclaghan for me I didn't see the sharp improvements I would've expected for someone who fired one coach to appoint a whole team. The rest of his team have helped enromously. Jez Green has worked wonders. Under this reigime it has helped him compete, but if he wants Slam success he needs to go beyond 'compete' become even more aggressive. I just wonder if Andy has done all he can.

I disagree that he has to "become even more aggressive". Yes, he mustn't do too much of the rope a dope, but the last think he needs to be doing is thinking that his only way to win is simply down to being more aggressive

Andy tends to get confidence from not making errors, which actually leads to him playing more aggressively.

It may be that Andy has peaked - but it could also be the case that he keeps this peak for 5 years. If so, at some time it will be good enough to win 2 or 3 Slams

There are time, banbrotam that he is too passive for his own good. By natural instinct he is a counter-puncher but when he faces the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djoko if he goes into counter-punch mode then they land their knockout blow first and from that there is no recovering that is why I feel he has to be more consistently aggressive.

CaledonianCraig wrote:There are time, banbrotam that he is too passive for his own good. By natural instinct he is a counter-puncher but when he faces the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djoko if he goes into counter-punch mode then they land their knockout blow first and from that there is no recovering that is why I feel he has to be more consistently aggressive.

We'll see. I'm not certain that Roger is as a potent force on the slower courts of (certainly last years) US or Aus Opens - as say he was in 2010. Plus I actually think Andy can beat Nadal at hard court slams - if he keeps this improvement in his forehand

Nole's the problem. His best is and probably has always been too much for Andy. However, I think Andy is so far ahead of the rest and can stay there, he already has enough and provided it's maintained in the next 5 years, then a Slam should be his

Hmmm interesting. One match into the clay court season for most players and we have seen the following from the main protaganists:-

Andy Murray V World No.30 Troicki drops three games in winning.

Novak Djokovic V World No.44 Seppi drops five games in winning.

Rafael Nadal V World No.48 Nieminen drops seven games in winning.

Also Thomasz Bellucci showing he is no mug on clay beating David Ferrer so you see other top players have problems against Bellucci on this surface - not just Murray last year.

Caledonian Craig

You are absoutely correct. Statistics cannot lie. In one afternoon Nadal's credentials on clay are in tatters. The only question that remains unanswered is who can claim to be the greatest ever on clay. Borg or Murray?

Just an observation hawkeye. Why so touchy? After all yesterday there was a lot of non-plussed stuff posted about Murray's performance and nothing of note today about the other top players who had less of a challenge yet made more of a meal of getting the win. Odd don't you think especially when many consider Murray to be mince on clay.

I didn't see anyone slander Murray's performance. I think his match statistics back that up as well. Nadal has proven time and time again that even a slack performance can get him through. At this stage I think a lot of posters would not bet against a Nadal 8th MC title. Nadal still has the gears as does Djokovic. The match results favour Murray yes, but it is early doors and there is no need to light fuse on another bitch fest.

Yes but why should there be a bitch fest? Surely, Murray's performance yesterday didn't deserve non-plussed stuff that was posted . I mean people on here have said they don't think he is all that great on clay - fair enough if that is what they think. In that case then they are not or shouldn't be in a position to berate his performances if they don't rate him. A bit of fairness in match analysis would that be asking too much legend?

Greg Rusedski has won more sets in slam finals in one match than Murray has in 3 finals.

Oh dear really expected better of Murray. Ah well back to the drawing board for Lendl I guess.

I shall have to watch the highlights package later.

He seemed to have it under control in the first set ... I need to check the highlights too.

Berdy is showing good fighting qualities, twice in a row he's comeback from losing the first set. If Roland Garros rankings was based on clay abilities alone, Murray would have to come through qualifiers.

There is a logical explanation. It is called the 'Fognini-Raodal Effect'.

Seriously, I expected him to play better, especially in the third set. It looked like his coat of 'Lendl' armour completely fell off in the third set.

It looked like his coat of 'Lendl' armour completely fell off in the third set.

Andy cannot be coached, look at his tactics. Forever bog standard. Troicki would have give a better match.

Oh dear. Andy's failings all too obvious again. This time Lendl really has his work cut out for him as the new approach promised in the Aussie Open of a more positive approach seems to have been forgotten already.

Lucky to win a set he's going to have to improve markedly on this woeful performance to match his semis achievement from last year. Wonder when the penny (if ever) is finally going to drop and he realises sometimes he needs to be more aggressive?

NB,

I don't think Andy backs himself against better players to play aggressively. I think it is a mental thing than a technical thing. The have been rare occasions where he has come through aggressively against better ranked players. Despite Berdych being a big lad, he is not going to tire in a BO3 format. Andy can not rely on his defence against such a player.

lk I suppose he might have expected someone like Berdych not to come back so strongly after losing the first set but his attitude once again was ppoor.

I know it sounds pessimistic and I'll be accused of being a doom and gloom merchant but I don't see any real improvements in Murray's game (OK I know whatever else clay is never going to be his favourite surface) and if his body language and subsequent play is still going to revert to type at the first sign of difficulty then we might still be in for more ultimate disappointments in the end.

Let's hope he really does learn something from this one otherwise there's always going to be that lingering doubt that he just hasn't got what it takes to make that next step and win something really big.

Dont you just love the negativity....not. Andy lost against a player high up in the world top ten in three sets on clay (a surface which I guess many of those negative posters feel he is rubbish on). That being the case it negates your right to placate him - after all what did you expect and lets remember to credit Berdych for putting on a great display. That is now four out of the last five clay tournaments when Andy has made at least the quarter-finals. Impressive if you feel he cannot play on this surface.

legendkillarV2 wrote:NB,

I don't think Andy backs himself against better players to play aggressively. I think it is a mental thing than a technical thing.

I think it's a technical thing.

To be agressive you need a good forehand and you need to be able to hit a good forehand down the line.Murray is weak in these areas. He's better at hitting a backhand down the line but even that needs improvement as he predictably hits crosscourt most of the time. The reason he's reluctant to play aggresively is because his technical skills need improvement.

IMO Murray is not willing to see this as a problem as he thinks his usual game is good enough. He has said as much. If he wanted to make technical improvements he would have employed a coach who could help him do so. (Mmmm so I suppose this refusal to see it as a problem could maybe be viewed as a mental thing?)

I think it is a mental thing than a technical thing.

Andy is far too seasoned for it to be a mental problem, he just cannot play any other way against constant attackers. Andy's clay career is a non starter.

No I disagree and would say it is a mental issue. I never saw the match as I am working but going by reports it was the old chestnut of not being aggressive enough. Out of interst anyone what were his serve stats? When he is aggressive and commits to shots he did show he has the game to trouble the very best when it matters (Australian Open this year). Like I have said before he is naturally a counter-puncher that needs reprogramming into an sggressive player all the time. Whether that will ever happen we will only know in a few years time.

One of Andy's perennial weaknesses is his 2nd serve. The stats today dont lie...

+ He faced 16(!) break points - and saved 11 - Berdy could have won much easier
+ His 2nd serve win rate dropped dramatically each set...this often happens with him...a) his 2nd serve gets worse through the match and b) his opponents get better at picking it off
+ His returning game was poor....only 1 BP against Berdy in 3 sets...on clay.

I still think his major issues are:
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...and the attack moment doesnt come
3. Too predictable in his play with CC shots
4. Movement on clay not developed yet this season, still looks awkward on it at times

That 2nd serve still needs serious work...he's never going to win matches when he's facing 16 BPs. So what gives? What does Lendl do...work on the mind, or work on the technique...?

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.

lol JM, I know what you kind of mean.
He seems stuck between the devil and deep blue sea a lot of times...he cant decide if he's a counterpuncher or attacker...and often reverts back to counterpunching by default. When you look at the top 3, ok Federer is an out and out aggressive player...but all 3 of them easily transition attack and defence...Murray seems to struggle with the transition more or not as clearly see the moment to switch....that is mental/confidence.

"No I disagree and would say it is a mental issue. I never saw the match as I am working but going by reports it was the old chestnut of not being aggressive enough."

In a nutshell CC that's what I was trying to say. He has the game and the weapons but when push comes to shove doesn't use them. Watch the highlights if you can and you'll see that Berdych was the polar opposite . Went for his shots and was positive throughout.

IMHO Andy's at a crossroads here. He can either carry on with this approach maybe getting to a couple more slam finals (if he gets lucky) or do what Novak did and really focus on the areas where he falls short. That means being mentally tougher in the big matches and playing more out of his comfort zone in earlier rounds of slams so that he doesn't come up short at the business end of these events like he has done so far.

And,no, sadly QF of Monte Carlo is not a great achievement for Andy.This is the kind of match you feel he should be winning against someone who was mentally fragile in the past. It looks (to this observer anyway) that Thomas will be more of a threat at the French in this form than Andy. If that is the case then it looks like it's back to the drawing board for Andy and Ivan I'm afraid.

Is the second serve a matter of lack of confidence? Wouldn't it be better to put a bit more oomph on it even at the risk of a few double faults?

Berdych seems to be a bit of a nightmare match up for him, or to turn that statement on its head - Berdych seems to find the mental strength against Murray that he seems to sorely lack at other times!

(I didn't get to watch the match btw so just really commenting on comments here )

Only saw second and third sets but from what I saw Berdych was serving excellently (Murray only had 1 break point in whole match) which put him constantly on the front foot in rallies. He was hitting with power and missed very little. Murray missed too many first serves allowing Berdych to punish his second serve.

I think Lydian's summary of major issues is spot on.

tp Andy's certainly seems to have a problem when he plays Berdych for sure. You would have thought though that Andy's game on clay in particular would measure up better against Thomas who is no clay court lover. Here's the head to head record which Berdych leads 4-2:

2012 Monte Carlo
France Clay Q Berdych, Tomas
6-7(3), 6-2, 6-3

2012 Dubai
U.A.E. Hard Q Murray, Andy
6-3, 7-5

2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Paris
France Hard Q Berdych, Tomas
4-6, 7-6(5), 6-4

2010 Roland Garros
France Clay R16 Berdych, Tomas
6-4, 7-5, 6-3

2006 Adelaide
Australia Hard R16 Berdych, Tomas
7-6(2), 4-6, 6-1

2005 Basel
Switzerland Carpet R16 Murray, Andy
6-4, 2-6, 6-4 Stats


Berdych actually has a surprisingly poor record at the French Open other than 2010 when he beat Andy to make the semis he's only ever once gone past the second round.

Hi NB, thanks for the stats

When Berdych's one/two game is really firing he is a very dangerous opponent - it often isn't firing but it seems to more often than not against Murray!

Agree nice stats new balls....Berdy always gives Andy problems but the matches are close. I just think Andy gives Tomas breathing space to mentally keep in the game whereas the top 3 don't give you much space to breathe at all...they keep the pressure up. With Andy you know those gaps are always going to come and they give the opponent more confidence. Agree TP he needs to go for the 2nd serve more and to heck with the double faults almost as he's losing many easy points on it anyway.

newballs wrote:"No I disagree and would say it is a mental issue. I never saw the match as I am working but going by reports it was the old chestnut of not being aggressive enough."

In a nutshell CC that's what I was trying to say. He has the game and the weapons but when push comes to shove doesn't use them. Watch the highlights if you can and you'll see that Berdych was the polar opposite . Went for his shots and was positive throughout.

IMHO Andy's at a crossroads here. He can either carry on with this approach maybe getting to a couple more slam finals (if he gets lucky) or do what Novak did and really focus on the areas where he falls short. That means being mentally tougher in the big matches and playing more out of his comfort zone in earlier rounds of slams so that he doesn't come up short at the business end of these events like he has done so far.

And,no, sadly QF of Monte Carlo is not a great achievement for Andy.This is the kind of match you feel he should be winning against someone who was mentally fragile in the past. It looks (to this observer anyway) that Thomas will be more of a threat at the French in this form than Andy. If that is the case then it looks like it's back to the drawing board for Andy and Ivan I'm afraid.

I can't disagree with much of that newballs. A quarter-final though on clay although not fantastic is certainly no disaster especially if you lose against a player in the top ten.

First of all, Berdych played tremendously well. Hitting flat and aggressive. It's a tough match up for Murray most of the time, and losing in 3 to a guy who is in the top 10 who has beaten top players before is hardly an embarrassment.

Murray did play pretty poorly though. His movement was sluggish at times, and I always feel when his movement is off his default setting it hustle and grind and try and get through.

I don't necessarily think it's back to the drawing board though. He is simply not as good on clay as the other surfaces, and the results show that. He did well last year at Rome, Monte Carlo and RG but i'd be surprised if he repeated it.

He has been more pro-active this season, closer to the baseline and going for his shots a lot more than he used to. But Murray plays well when he serves and moves well, and more often than not he doesn't move well enough on clay. If rankings were done on a surface by surface basis, Murray wouldn't be in the top 6 or 7 on clay, let alone challenging the top 3.

Not a disaster at all, but confirmation for me that he is a major contender at 3 slams a year, and not really a contender at the one played on clay.

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

newballs wrote:"No I disagree and would say it is a mental issue. ... going by reports it was the old chestnut of not being aggressive enough."

In a nutshell CC that's what I was trying to say. ...

But that's just nuts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t9ZJK-vc-I

Murray really fell away on the third set
..................................Murray...................Berdych
1st Serve Points Won 14/25 (56%) ..........9/14 (64%)
2nd Serve Points Won 4/11 (36%) ...........5/9 (56%)

Just watching it, he was rubbish and lucky not to get a really heavy beating.

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?