Andy Murrray - Golden Momentum Slightly Fading?

I haven't been on the internet much this weekend, but I have come on today to see a lot of articles and views on Britain's best tennis player. Since Wimbledon he has certainly been on an Indian Summer. It has been a massive summer for Andy. I think more importantly he has gained new fans and supporters and certainly won over some of his detractors in the press. I think that it has taken a lot out of Andy. He has riding on adrenaline through the Olympics.

Andy has had a poor HC season thus far. Pulled out of Toronto and lost to Chardy at Cincinnati. Federer and Djokovic have certainly played themselves into form. Some might argue that hey Andy lost at Queens to Mahut and then went on to make the Wimbledon final with a pretty tough draw. Do bear in mind that last time Andy made the final of the US Open he won Cincinnati. When he made the Australian Open final in 2011 he won Shanghai in 2010. For me Andy doesn't have enough HC form for me to mount a serious challenge. The argument at Wimbledon was that Nadal was taken out early. The equation was made simple. He only had to defeat 1 out of the big 3. The equation now is much different. Overcome Federer to contest the title. Also there is the matter of current champion Djokovic with a peach of a draw.

With Andy it has never been about physical conditioning, but mental conditioning. Staying strong for 14 days. That has always and will be his achillies heel. Last year he threw in an indifferent performance against Robin Haase and should've lost. He is sceptical to such battles in Slams that you feel he could avoid. He has shown post Wimbledon a stronger mentality, but for me the gold that came from it is starting to fade.

I believe he can win the US Open. It is going to take something special to do it and I feel this could be the beginning of something special.

I'm not sure what your saying. Andy's golden momentum is fading AND it is the beginning of something special. Is this bad or good?

hawkeye wrote:I'm not sure what your saying. Andy's golden momentum is fading AND it is the beginning of something special. Is this bad or good?

It is going to take something special to do it and I feel this could be the beginning of [that] something special.

Does highlighting and the addition make it more comprehensible, HE?

"Last year he threw in an indifferent performance against Robin Haase and should've lost. He is sceptical to such battles in Slams that you feel he could avoid"

You can't refer to one match as evidence that he is susceptible in that way. In fact, since the start of 2011 Murray has been very economical at going through draws. Obviously, he lost to Ferrer on clay but the only other time he has even been taken to 5 by a non top 4 player was Troicki at RG11, when obviously he was significantly impeded by his ankle.

In comparison over that period, Federer has lost to Tsonga and gone 5 sets against Simon, DP and Benneteau. Nadal has lost to Rosol and gone 5 sets with Isner at RG and Djokovic has gone 5 sets with Seppi and Tsonga. All the top 4 have been relatively equally prone to getting themselves into and out of trouble.

Agree a little with the main premise of the article. The Chardy loss was very strange and is not an ideal result leading into the US. However, I don't think it will particularly affect him. He has three easyish matches to start and get himself going. The big test will come from R4 onwards, assuming all goes to seeding. If the US Open is as quick as is being suggested then even Murray may struggle to break the monster that is Raonic.

"Andy doesn't have enough HC form for me to mount a serious challenge" surely disagrees with "I believe he can win the US Open"; he can't challenge for the title but he can actually win it??

Anyway, momentum is overated in sport. Pedigree is what counts. History shows a weak relationship between warm up tournaments and the actual slam. You can play yourself into form during the early rounds anyway.

I've seen some people say he's out of form because of Toronto and Cincy. Interesting really, as the criticism used to be he does it in the smaller ones but the big 3 save it for the bigger ones.

He will walk out as Olympic champion. Now some fans couldn't give a rats ass about that, but all4 semi finalists wanted that gold medal and Andy got it, beating the world numbers 1 and 2 to get it.

That confidence may make a big difference at the business end. His lack of HC matches may make him a touch rusty, but then again he will have played 3 matches by the time his first serious challenge arrives.

He'll be fine.

Murray will go into this USO with his usual 5% share of probabilities to grab that elusive slam. An interesting question might be whether he can significantly benefit from the absence of Nadal, just like the rest of the fields. I think his odds have to be sllightly upgraded as a consequence, to reach a 7/8% chance, good yet not great.

For once, the shadow of Nadal isn't hanging over Murray. Nadal would have been seeded 3rd seeing as the seeds are pretty much based on the rankings, therefore the only place they'd meet would be the final and there's no guarantee either would make it that far. Therefore, I don't think Murray really cares about Nadal's absence from a players point of view. Federer and Djokovic on the other hand.....

The Special Juan wrote:
Therefore, I don't think Murray really cares about Nadal's absence from a players point of view. Federer and Djokovic on the other hand.....

Disagree. With Nadal in, Murray would have had the near certainty to find either Djokovic or Nadal awaiting in the final, in case he gets there. Instead, with current conditions, a Djokovic upset would open up one side of the draw considerably, giving greater chance for the finalist in the lower part of the draw.