How has this happened?

First topic message reminder :

In 2009, 22 year old Andy Murray beat 28 year old Roger Federer in Indian Wells to open up a 6-2 head to head lead.
In 2014 33 year old Federer beat 27 year old Murray to square the head to head up at 11 each.

How does that happen? Since when does it work that way round? Isn't the older guy supposed to beat the novice up, but then be overhauled as he declines and the younger guy improves? The Slam records of the two clearly shows that Federers powers have waned in that time, and Murray has strengthened, making numerous finals and winning two. The same goes for their ranking. In 2009 Federer recaptured the #1 ranking, but is only recently recovering from dropping to #7. Murray admittedly is down right now, but that's mainly due to missed events last year.

So what's happened in the game of these two to turn the match up the other way round?

Edit: corrected date of Fed getting back to #1

bogbrush wrote:I give up, you just can't get it.

Yep that's where I exited the thread...CC and others seem to think self confidence can be heightened by playing a game that isn't natural to you over the long term. I refer them back to the very statement Murray has himself made about the need to revert back to the way he used to play. Why is he saying that? Think...
On which point, I think he knows better what's good for him at 27 years old that anyone on here...

Where have I said such a thing? I have not written off a theory of returning to variety or of him implementing his game plan used under Lendl which brought him his slam wins. I am merely saying that first he must get back a modicum of self-belief and confidence then any changes he is trying to make to his game will come easier to him.

Yes, yes, yes....but what is the basis of Murray's renewed self belief? In continuing to play in a manner he clearly doesn't enjoy anymore?
The Lendl days are over...they were short lived and successful but have left Murray with a game blunter and narrower than Ferrer's! Murray can see it, why can't his fans?

And what has caused the bluntness in his game? I am saying a big part is lack of self-belief and that was certainly evident in his defeat to Tsonga when in a winning position and threw away a healthy second set lead against Roger. He had the game to get into healthy positions there and blew it - traits of lack of self-belief and low confidence for me.

A self belief that his current game is not strong enough to see off the top opposition in crucial positions in matches being losing or winning positions. His all round game needs improvement.

As for the basis for regaining self-belief it is to close out matches like those he should have won v Tsonga and win set two v Federer which would help.

Basically, we all here agree Murray has big problems at the moment. I say it is lack of Self-belief, confidence and hunger whilst others say it is his style of play. Who is right? A bit of both I would say.

So, he doesn't close out games because of a lack of self belief, which is caused by him failing to close out matches?

Screwed then, isn't he?

Simply put Murray has had a career similar to a player in the 60s called Fred Stolle, won 2 slams when he was 27 and was runner up FIVE times   Never got to number 1 because of mental issues.

I still think Murray has another slam he can win, depends on his brain.

bogbrush wrote:So, he doesn't close out games because of a lack of self belief, which is caused by him failing to close out matches?

Screwed then, isn't he?

The hope is that he'll finish one of those matches off and things will begin to click. It may take him facing a top player with their own mental/technical demons to help him on his way. We shall see.

Interesting posts. BB might be right, Murray may not like the game style that has brought him the success. And if he wants to revert to the early days style, fair enough.

I personally don't think he'll win slams if he reverts fully. Murray despite a wealth of attacking tools is naturally defensive. He says in his book that as a kid he always played older boys with more power, so used to try and twist their minds with junk balls, drop shots, slices, a mix of slices and he would try and negate their power by sitting back and defending.

That, in my opinion, will not win slams. He says he wants to mix variety with aggression. Well, I haven't seen that so far. I've seen lots of nothing balls and a position further behind the baseline than before.

I think a neutral would want to see the santoro upgrade version of Murray back in town. It's fun to watch. I want to see him win slams. I think there's a couple more if he's aggressive AND believes in that game. The fact that he doesn't disappoints me because if he's not on the front foot I don't think he'll win more.

to conclude, I want what Craig wants. But I think BB might be right in terms of his motives... BUT whilst that might result in a happier Murray, I don't think he will add to his slams as without someone dragging him up the court, because his version of variety is a defensive one.

It's not just BB saying it.

Anyway, on the variety point this was written at Wimbledon BTW...
"Variety appears to be the buzz word from the Murray camp. It is what his mother instilled in him, it is something Mauresmo is pushing for, and it was apparent as Rola struggled to make any sort of inroads into the Murray game plan.

“That was something Amelie did very well,” he said. “The variety, it’s an important part of my game. It’s something I’m sure she’ll encourage. That’s how I’ve always tried to play the game. That’s how I grew up playing, that’s what my mum tried to teach me.”

I bet his mum put a flea in his ear recently too about reverting more to the style of play that got him to where he actually is in the game. So it's clear he appointed Amelie because he wants to revert back to the varied style of play and sees that's how she played and understands the game. Of course, it doesn't mean wholesale change, just more tactics and options used rather than hitting regulation FHs and BHs from the back of the court all the time. If anything this means more aggression, not less, as Amelie was a very aggressive player seeking to get into the net often. Expect Murray to start playing likewise.

I know you're saying it too Lydian, I know others have said it too.

So far, the difference I have seen in Murray is a negative one. Deeper, more passive. That is from watching every single Murray match since Mauresmo came on board. He is LESS aggressive. That is what im trying to get accross here. More variety is great, playing a game you enjoy is great... But Murray's natural game is defensive, and so far thats what I have seen him regressing to.

For years we waited for him to dictate more, be further up the court... Now we (and by we I mean some Murray fans) see him moving back behind the baseline. Back to where we were all saying 'you won't win slams from back there'... and he didn't.

So in theory, everyone in the variety camp is right. In practice, Murray has become too passive. Too defensive. Away from the zone that broght home the slams. Please tell me i'm making at least a shred of sense... to someone. Anyone.

That is what's hard to understand. He is talking the talk but not walking the walk.

Tough to effect change; how long did it take Federer to really start returning to his more forward game under Annacone? I think it's only under Edberg that he's started to properly look the part (perhaps he saw something in Annacone that wasn't helping him make that happen?).

Providing this is the strategy, which he says it is, he's chosen his coach with purpose. As I said earlier, if the need is mental strength then choosing Mauresmo would be.... well..... mental.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:So, he doesn't close out games because of a lack of self belief, which is caused by him failing to close out matches?

Screwed then, isn't he?

The hope is that he'll finish one of those matches off and things will begin to click. It may take him facing a top player with their own mental/technical demons to help him on his way. We shall see.

Wait and hope for the best is not a rational strategy.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:So, he doesn't close out games because of a lack of self belief, which is caused by him failing to close out matches?

Screwed then, isn't he?

The hope is that he'll finish one of those matches off and things will begin to click. It may take him facing a top player with their own mental/technical demons to help him on his way. We shall see.

Wait and hope for the best is not a rational strategy.

No I realise that but that is what it might take.

Remember that he has reached two slam quarters and one semi this year so that is not a sign his tennis is in a shambolic state. It is in other areas that are real concern. Tame defeats in matches against Nadal and Dimitrov smacks of lacking something other than game plan but more of something deeper as were his defeats against Tsonga and Federer. For me he needs self-belief but getting that is always tough and I don't think Mauresmo can stir that up in Andy like Ivan did. I may be wrong of course like I may be wrong about other things bu it is painfully obvious that he has to turn things around or he could vanish into obscurity.

Vanish into obscurity...? Que? Come on...this so-called core negative, defensive inherent game of Murray's propelled him >500 ranking places to the top 15 from Dec 2004 to Dec 2006. From then he got to top 10 within another 5 months by age 20, well over a year before his run to USO final in 2008. He'll never descend into obscurity until he retires. There clearly wasn't too much wrong in his game other than general improvements in conditioning needed...we'll never know if he could have been even more successful had he honed his natural way of playing with increased conditioning.

lydian wrote:Vanish into obscurity...? Que? Come on...this so-called core negative, defensive inherent game of Murray's propelled him >500 ranking places to the top 15 from Dec 2004 to Dec 2006. From then he got to top 10 within another 5 months by age 20, well over a year before his run to USO final in 2008. He'll never descend into obscurity until he retires. There clearly wasn't too much wrong in his game other than general improvements in conditioning needed...we'll never know if he could have been even more successful had he honed his natural way of playing with increased conditioning.

Yes an interesting point but the sages of message boards back in that time weren't so impressed as I recall it. Many were adamant he'd never win a slam and that Tim Henman was better than him so it wasn't all rosy back then.