Andy Murray - get it of your chests

First topic message reminder :

Feel free to discuss the exit of Murray

This is a special post, that allows people to troll as much as they want - as you know you want to

You can also have some decent discussion here too

(Keeps the other threads clearer)

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Murray not the most natural or fluid of players or even the most competitive of players.

What he was in the early days was a thinker and good tactician. That's what I liked in his game. Someone who could think their way past an opponent. Sadly he traded that in.

Yep.

The fitness thing didn't have to mean that either, but he went down that attritional tennis route. He won things with it but I always remember that at Wimbledon 2012 it was he who wilted physically, not Federer - which imo was because Federer always had the initiate in rallies and ran him ragged. The old Andy, but fitter, might have employed a few smarter tricks.

For two sets of that final Murray dictated with his forehand and Fed did the majority of the running. It looked very similar to the Olympic final a few weeks later. It was a fairly easy workout. However, after Murray made those two terrible errors on easy backhands to put him in charge of set 2 it seemed to galvanise Roger who produced some insane play to win set 2. After that Murray didn't look the same player - his forehand lost a lot of its bite and Roger in contrast got stronger. Andy did then do a lot of running in sets 3 and 4. I still suspect it was more mental dejection than physical effort that took its toll though.

There is no doubt Andy needed to work on his fitness. His natural stamina seems to be a long way off Novak or Rafa or even Fed. However, quite why be abandoned some of the variety - he serve volleyed a lot against Rafa in US 08 for example - I don't understand. A lot of that has been back in the last couple of events but sadly not when really needed in the big matches. His post exit interview was reasonably encouraging as he talked about needing to improve. Hopefully he is talking about the same sort of things rather than just getting fitter.

I'd buy this, if you can explain why when a similar thing happened in their Aus 13' SF, Murray regrouped and won

Out of all the Top 4, Andy and Roger have the most 'topsy turvy' matches, simply because they play in a more instinctive manner than their two rivals.

This leads to their unpredictable sets, never mind matches

In 2012 the roof was a factor, simply because Murray's biggest weakness is adapting to change. For instance I started to worry about him here the moment the Anderson game when indoors and he started playing cautiously. Then, comprehending this - he actually admitted that he doesn't like the indoor feel (not direct quote)

i.e. Murray's issues are mental, but more to do with his mood than his opponents

That said, I still think Dimi would have won

Hey Ban' hope you caught some of the TdF today?! I used to cycle huge parts of that course all the time, loved seeing those guys doing it. The crowds at the top of Blackstone Edge were phenomenal!

There's no easy answer with Murray and we'll see where his game goes in future...you can't hide your tennis DNA forever so let's see if he starts to use more guile/net play in his matches moving forwards.

But let's face it Murray is not cut of the same cloth as Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. It's always been 3+1. Expecting him to reach consecutive slam finals or semis at every slam is unrealistic. He hasn't got their inbuilt self confidence year in, year out. However, he is capable of focusing for some bursts of tournaments extremely well so he needs to find inspiration again. Not sure Amelie is that figure or catalyst. His pressing concern now is to return to top8 so his seeding protects him at Masters and USO.

Finally, I actually hope he spends 4-5 weeks doing almost nothing but improving his 2nd serves...it's never to late to radicalise your serve...just look at what Michael Chang did to his around the same stage, it became a relative monster! If he can do it so can Murray and the confidence boost he'd get from having a ~95-100mph 2nd serve would be enormous.

Hmm, Murray made 5 consecutive SF and 9 out of 10. He also made 4 successive slam finals he competed in before being cruelly struck down with a back problem severe enough to require surgery, just as he reached his peak years. I suspect that had Nadal had an injury severe enough to require surgery and then not been quite as good in the months after your attitude might be slightly different.

The 2nd serve is poor but it clearly just requires a mindset change not some radical work on technique. Any time off should be spent working on the 1st serve and tweaking his tactical play. Figuring out why, since his injury, he seems to be paralysed by nerves in any moderately big match and what to do about it would be great as well. The good news is he seems to be moving much better than earlier in the year and is regaining confidence in the back. Its only small tweaks needed and I am very optimistic that 2015 will see him back at slam winning level.

banbrotam wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Murray not the most natural or fluid of players or even the most competitive of players.

What he was in the early days was a thinker and good tactician. That's what I liked in his game. Someone who could think their way past an opponent. Sadly he traded that in.

Yep.

The fitness thing didn't have to mean that either, but he went down that attritional tennis route. He won things with it but I always remember that at Wimbledon 2012 it was he who wilted physically, not Federer - which imo was because Federer always had the initiate in rallies and ran him ragged. The old Andy, but fitter, might have employed a few smarter tricks.

For two sets of that final Murray dictated with his forehand and Fed did the majority of the running. It looked very similar to the Olympic final a few weeks later. It was a fairly easy workout. However, after Murray made those two terrible errors on easy backhands to put him in charge of set 2 it seemed to galvanise Roger who produced some insane play to win set 2. After that Murray didn't look the same player - his forehand lost a lot of its bite and Roger in contrast got stronger. Andy did then do a lot of running in sets 3 and 4. I still suspect it was more mental dejection than physical effort that took its toll though.

There is no doubt Andy needed to work on his fitness. His natural stamina seems to be a long way off Novak or Rafa or even Fed. However, quite why be abandoned some of the variety - he serve volleyed a lot against Rafa in US 08 for example - I don't understand. A lot of that has been back in the last couple of events but sadly not when really needed in the big matches. His post exit interview was reasonably encouraging as he talked about needing to improve. Hopefully he is talking about the same sort of things rather than just getting fitter.

I'd buy this, if you can explain why when a similar thing happened in their Aus 13' SF, Murray regrouped and won

Out of all the Top 4, Andy and Roger have the most 'topsy turvy' matches, simply because they play in a more instinctive manner than their two rivals.

This leads to their unpredictable sets, never mind matches

In 2012 the roof was a factor, simply because Murray's biggest weakness is adapting to change. For instance I started to worry about him here the moment the Anderson game when indoors and he started playing cautiously. Then, comprehending this - he actually admitted that he doesn't like the indoor feel (not direct quote)

i.e. Murray's issues are mental, but more to do with his mood than his opponents

That said, I still think Dimi would have won

Murray had just won the Olympics and the US Open. Not having the belief he could win a big match was no longer a problem.

kingraf wrote:BS - I genuinely believe it. It's not a knock on Murray, but Dimi has serious tools in his shed.

Fair enough. Have to say that my personal view is that Dimi is a potential top 5 player who is still has serious deficiencies particularly with his backhand and return. I don't think he comes close to Murray in terms of tools in the shed.

Yeah his return is a bit of a shipwreck, but his athleticism is elite, imo. Still not sure what Jahu meant when he said un-kinglike, I don't instigate!!

I meant it as the King does not sooth things. He gives orders and marches on, you know, ruthless, not soothing.   

banbrotam wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Murray not the most natural or fluid of players or even the most competitive of players.

What he was in the early days was a thinker and good tactician. That's what I liked in his game. Someone who could think their way past an opponent. Sadly he traded that in.

Yep.

The fitness thing didn't have to mean that either, but he went down that attritional tennis route. He won things with it but I always remember that at Wimbledon 2012 it was he who wilted physically, not Federer - which imo was because Federer always had the initiate in rallies and ran him ragged. The old Andy, but fitter, might have employed a few smarter tricks.

For two sets of that final Murray dictated with his forehand and Fed did the majority of the running. It looked very similar to the Olympic final a few weeks later. It was a fairly easy workout. However, after Murray made those two terrible errors on easy backhands to put him in charge of set 2 it seemed to galvanise Roger who produced some insane play to win set 2. After that Murray didn't look the same player - his forehand lost a lot of its bite and Roger in contrast got stronger. Andy did then do a lot of running in sets 3 and 4. I still suspect it was more mental dejection than physical effort that took its toll though.

There is no doubt Andy needed to work on his fitness. His natural stamina seems to be a long way off Novak or Rafa or even Fed. However, quite why be abandoned some of the variety - he serve volleyed a lot against Rafa in US 08 for example - I don't understand. A lot of that has been back in the last couple of events but sadly not when really needed in the big matches. His post exit interview was reasonably encouraging as he talked about needing to improve. Hopefully he is talking about the same sort of things rather than just getting fitter.

I'd buy this, if you can explain why when a similar thing happened in their Aus 13' SF, Murray regrouped and won
Out of all the Top 4, Andy and Roger have the most 'topsy turvy' matches, simply because they play in a more instinctive manner than their two rivals.

This leads to their unpredictable sets, never mind matches

In 2012 the roof was a factor, simply because Murray's biggest weakness is adapting to change. For instance I started to worry about him here the moment the Anderson game when indoors and he started playing cautiously. Then, comprehending this - he actually admitted that he doesn't like the indoor feel (not direct quote)

i.e. Murray's issues are mental, but more to do with his mood than his opponents

That said, I still think Dimi would have won

I don't think Federer was ever going to win back to back 5 setters. Especially with the back issues he was having and also given his age (not writing him off as pensioner) I don't think he has ever won back to back 5 setters once in his career at the Slams.

I don't think there is a big four in tennis. That term is bandied about far too easily. There's a big two and then two or here others who are dangerous,if you include Wawrinka.

Hard to understand how someone can argue with Big 4 given the last few years. If you are saying that at this point in time it is outdated then fair enough but for several years 4 players have won 95% of the big events. Of course, there has always been a pecking order within the 4 themselves but as against the field you would have been stupid to back against any of them.

As for Murray, I think it looks bright. His game has got better more or less every tournament this year and, realistically, most of this year was always going to be spent regaining confidence in the back. He is probably got 3-4 peak years left if he remains motivated and I think he should be back close to top 4 by the end of the year. 2015 is when to really judge him.

"If he remains motivated..."

That's the key bit for me. We'll see, they all go through slumps so hopefully it's a blip right now, not a trend downwards. SF @ RG and QF @ Wimb is hardly a disaster.

I am not really sure why anyone thinks Murray has lost motivation after winning Wimbledon last year

You can see he is motivated - just not back to his best from the back surgery

It just reminds me of the lazy British press to make up a complete non story to fill their pages

Murray is coming back after surgery, so too much doom and gloom is unwarranted.

Having said that I'm not sure he'll get Wimbledon again - too much pressure (both self-imposed and in terms of expectation) and too many guys out there who can stop him if he's not playing at his very best. IMO the USO presents a better opportunity for him - less pressure and the stateside vibe seems to agree with him.

I am sure I speak for the majority of Murray supporters on this forum when I say we know he is something of an enigma. We have never put him up amongst the legends as he has flaws. I'd say the likes of Nadal, Federer and even Djokovic are more mentally grounded and of course all have stronger second serves. The likes of Rafa and Roger are more natural talents as things happen more smoothly and even on off days they can find ways to win. Andy is a match for any player on days when everything is right with him. By that I mean he is mentally tuned in, his first serve is firing and plays aggressively but sadly those times just don't happen enough hence his lower slam count. Talent-wise he is right up there but the flaws restrict him too much. Something tells me that is how it will always be with Andy but still feel he has a few more magic moments left in him.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am sure I speak for the majority of Murray supporters on this forum when I say we know he is something of an enigma. We have never put him up amongst the legends as he has flaws. I'd say the likes of Nadal, Federer and even Djokovic are more mentally grounded and of course all have stronger second serves. The likes of Rafa and Roger are more natural talents as things happen more smoothly and even on off days they can find ways to win. Andy is a match for any player on days when everything is right with him. By that I mean he is mentally tuned in, his first serve is firing and plays aggressively but sadly those times just don't happen enough hence his lower slam count. Talent-wise he is right up there but the flaws restrict him too much. Something tells me that is how it will always be with Andy but still feel he has a few more magic moments left in him.

+ 1

And I would add it is important to add, that not being quite up with the other 3 is by no means a failure.

He has 2 slams ! which is fantastic even if he did not get more - which I think he may still do

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am sure I speak for the majority of Murray supporters on this forum when I say we know he is something of an enigma. We have never put him up amongst the legends as he has flaws. I'd say the likes of Nadal, Federer and even Djokovic are more mentally grounded and of course all have stronger second serves. The likes of Rafa and Roger are more natural talents as things happen more smoothly and even on off days they can find ways to win. Andy is a match for any player on days when everything is right with him. By that I mean he is mentally tuned in, his first serve is firing and plays aggressively but sadly those times just don't happen enough hence his lower slam count. Talent-wise he is right up there but the flaws restrict him too much. Something tells me that is how it will always be with Andy but still feel he has a few more magic moments left in him.

Yep, fully agree with this.

Mentally he is not up there with the other 3, but for a year under Lendl he was. Will he ever get back to that level again? Who knows. Hopefully.

One thing is for sure, the suffering for us Murray fans of all those near misses for all those years made New York, the Olympics and Wimbledon. So much sweeter. Who knows how enjoyable those occasions would have been if they were the norm.