A Reevaluation of Andy Murray

[Kirijax]

With the dust settling from the French Open and Wimbledon, I've found myself looking at my current favorite player in a different light. Stan Wawrinka's victory at Roland Garros and Andy Murray's failure to get to the final of Wimbledon has caused me to reevaluate Andy Murray's place in the current era. There has always been debate about the "Big Four" and if Andy Murray belongs in that group. I know a lot of you do not agree with it and until now I always thought that Murray should be included. My reasons have been Murray's number of Grand Slam finals, his number of Masters titles, his number of ATP titles and his record against the Big Three. Looking at these numbers alone, he is far away away better than anyone else. Until now Murray seemed to have the upward momentum and many believed that he would someday break out from under the Big Three and start winning his own share of Slams, maybe ending up with six or so.
But the last two Grand Slams have shed new light on Murray for me. I no longer hope for Murray's potential to finally reach full bloom and see him win more slams. I think Murray has reached his ceiling. He may win a couple more slams somewhere along the way. But I don't believe he belongs in the talk of the Big Four any longer.
When Murray won the Olympic medal in 2012 to start his run, he was fortunate to play an exhausted Roger Federer in the final. Beating Juan Martin del Potro 19-17 in the final set had to have an effect on Federer. Murray played great in the final in front of a home crowd, but he was fortunate in his opponent. When Murray won the U.S. Open later on, he was fortunate to have an extreme windy day for the final. The weather bothered Novak Djokovic much more than Murray. Even still, Murray almost lsot it after winning the first two sets, only to lose the next two. He played the best tennis of his career I think, considering the circumstances to final win his first Slam. Then Wimbledon came. Again in front of a home crowd, Murray was fortunate to have Djokovic in the final. Djokovic had just fought through an incredible 5-set match with del Potro and had to be feeling the effects of it. Murray himself had come from two sets down to escape Fernando Verdasco so it's difficult to see how he was feeling by the time of the final. But he was able to ride an emotional wave to the title.
I don't want to say that Murray was lucky in winning those three titles. He earned them on his own right and did what he had to do. That's all you can do. But in each case, the circumstances all worked in his favor and he was able to take advantage of it.
And there is the big difference I felt with Murray and the Big Three. Even when circumstances are not ideal, weather, injuries, opponent, whatever, the Big Three have shown they are able to overcome it all and win Slams. All three can win slams even if the circumstances are not ideal and they have proven they can do that. The outcome of the match is more up to them than their opponent. With Murray, you get the feeling that when he is facing one of the Big Three, he is not in control. If one of the Big Three is playing well, then Murray has no chance. Murray may still win some Slams but everything has to go just right for him to be able to grab the title.
So where does that leave Murray? The trio of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have reached such heights that it seems wrong to continue to add Murray to the group.
To a lesser extent, Wawrinka and del Potro have made their mark during the era of the Big Four as well. Does Murray belong in this group?

Andy Murray's numbers:
Top ranking: No. 2
Years in Top Ten: 7
Grand Slams: 2
Grand Slam Finals: 8
Masters 1000 titles: 10
World Tour Final: (Semifinals; '08, '10, '12)
Olympics: Gold Medal (2012)
Davis Cup:
ATP titles: 34
Combined record against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic: 25-47

Stan Wawrinka's numbers:
Top ranking: No. 3
Years in Top Ten: 2
Grand Slams: 2
Grand Slam Finals: 2
Masters 1000 titles: 1
World Tour Finals: (Semifinals; '13, '14)
Olympics: Gold medal (2008 doubles)
Davis Cup: 2014 Champion
ATP titles: 10
Combined record against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic: 9-46

Juan Martin del Potro's numbers:
Top ranking: No. 4
Years in Year-End Top Ten: 4
Grand Slams: 1
Grand Slam Finals: 1
Masters 1000 titles: 0
World Tour Finals: 2009 Runner Up
Olympics: Bronze medal
Davis Cup: Finalist ('08, '11)
ATP titles: 18
Combined record against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic: 12-34

Murray's number are of course way better than the other two. But With Djokovic ascending into the stratosphere of greats this year, I don't think he belongs with those three in any way any more. "The Big Three + 1" or "The Other Three" is probably the group Murray should be mentioned in from now. "The Big Four" moniker was a name given to those four with the expectations that Murray would rise to the level of the other three, but it's pretty obvious now that it isn't going to happen. Of course Murray could suddenly explode and surprise everyone the way Wawrinka has in the last two years, but seeing the Wimbledon semifinal vs. Federer, I think we have seen Murray reach his full potential. He is still capable of winning a slam, but a whole lot of things have to go right for that to happen anymore.

The Big Three

The Other Three

 

[nehmeth]

Well thought out and well written Kirijax.

I really felt with the addition of Bjorkman to the team we would have seen a much more aggressive Murray at Wimbledon. A couple of people stated, that at his age, Andy isn't going to make any radical changes to his game. That may well be true.

He brought his "A" game against Roger, played well, and got beaten in three. What was worse, even though Andy played well, Roger's game put a rather glaring light on his shortcomings.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Don't make fun of Murray. I have full faith in him. Just wait for JMDP to recover from his wrist surgery and come back to the circuit. Then JMDP will soften more players in SF and send them to F against Andy in important tourneys. Surely, Andy's credentials will improve then. :snicker

 

[Federberg]

I completely agree with what you've written Kiri. This is why I always insist on Big 3 and top 4 as descriptives. He does not belong in the Big 3. As great a player as he is, and he is a great player, I have always felt that he cannot beat the other 3 if they are playing well. Sadly the rest of the tour should watch Rogers clinic against him. It is a blueprint even dummies should comprehend about how to beat Andy. You simply can't do that against the Big 3. They might have relative weaknesses but NOT flaws

 

[brokenshoelace]

Murray has fundamental problems to his game that prevent him from beating the other 3 at their best.

The more I watch him, the more I notice subtle aspects that separate them from him. For instance, we've all talked about the "aggression" and the forehand, and obviously, both are his main problems (in addition to the second serve). Thing is though, you can see him trying to change things, as opposed to say 09-11 where he seemed almost stubborn about his approach to the game. You often see him trying to make adjustments within the match.

The problem though, is when he ups the aggression, you see him "visibly" upping the aggression, more so than any other top player. He starts taking huge cuts at the ball with the forehand, absolutely unloading even on rally shots. And that's a problem in itself. It's not like Murray is going for broke on these forehands (and he shouldn't). But he's having to move his feet so much, run around backhands, and take huge swings, just to muster up aggressive rally forehands. Compare that to his backhand side, where he's just effortless, has a pretty short, compact backswing, and can just take the ball on the rise.

Murray just doesn't have that natural aggression on the forehand side. Even Nadal, who when he's being aggressive, you can almost feel and hear him doing it, is a different case, because he can actually construct a point aggressively with the forehand without going for much (his rally forehand is far superior), and when he tries to end a point, can actually do it off that wing far easier. Djokovic has arguably the best rally forehand on tour at this point and nobody can spread the court better, while Federer is Federer.

The other thing about Murray's forehand is he can't compensate for this by just changing directions, going up the line and trying to end points quicker since that's not a shot he excels at. And that's the problem with having your forehand as your inferior ground stroke. With the backhand, you can conceal its weakness by slicing the ball or just use it to set up running around the subsequent shot. Moreover, with the backhand, you're typically going to your opponent's backhand as well (most exchanges are cross court, for the most part), which is usually your opponent's weaker shot, so you're not punished as severely. But when your forehand is the weaker shot, it's generally going to your opponent's forehand when you go cross court, and you can pay.

Murray's forehand is actually not a poor shot. His cross court rally forehand is OK against most, and he can use it to put himself in good positions. But against the other 3, who move so well and are such solid baseliners, it's not good enough.

You can pick a few matches in which his forehand was working and it allowed him to be much more at ease when being aggressive (the two Nadal matches he won at majors, the 2012 AO semi final with Djokovic) but those are few and far in between. Keep in mind, because of the way Nadal plays (ie hitting his cross court forehand to his opponent's backhand), Murray will get to use his backhand far more in rallies, which explains why he looked so good in those matches.

And finally, the most overlooked aspect is Murray's first serve. He can hit it the biggest out of the big 4 but it's not nearly dominant enough. Federer is obviously a much superior serve and at this point, even Djokovic is.

 

[Federberg]

:laydownlaughing
I had to laugh BS. Rafa Nadal's rally forehand is BEYOND superior to Andy's. That's one of the all time great shots for me (at least in its old form). He just pushes everyone back (apart from perhaps Novak and Roger who try to take it early, with differing levels of success of course :cover). And then obviously if a short ball comes Rafa will put an end to the discussion. But I totally agree with your points. Just thought more emphasis was needed

 

[Kirijax]

My post may piss off my fellow Murray fans but this Wimbledon was a rude awakening for me personally. I am still a Murray fan and will be rooting for him to win some more Slams and Masters. But sometimes you need to face facts as well. Putting Murray up there on the Big pedestal is just too much anymore. Murray is a great player and will go down in histroy with what he has done already and there will be a place for him in the Hall of Fame. He may even go on to win 40+ ATP titles and a couple more Slams. But he had the misfortune of coming up when Federer was a god, then when Nadal was the king and now when Djokovic is the sovereign of tennis. All things considered, Murray has done amazingly well.

 

[jhar26]

I think you're a bit TOO harsh on Murray, Kirijax. I think that at this point we're in the post-big three/four era really. But for years we were in a situation where we had "the big three" made up of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Beneath them there was another big four, though not quite as big, who had more or less seperated themselves from the rest of the pack - delPotro, Tsonga, Ferrer and Berdych. Murray was somewere between these two groups. Although he didn't quite have the resume of the big three he was miles ahead of that second group. Considering him constantly being in the top four on the ranking list, him usually being in the mix at the business end of slams, his number of masters titles, and so on I've always considered him a member of "the big four" myself. The most vulnerable member of those big four perhaps, but nevertheless one of the four real contenders for the biggest trophees in the game, whereas if one of the lesser big four won something above masters 500 level it would be what we call an upset. These are all just words of course. If Murray would win the USO in a few months time one could argue that he's one of "the big two" of the moment. And he probably is. As we speak Murray seems like the most likely challenger to Novak on a consistent basis at the moment.

 

[Kirijax]

I think you're a bit TOO harsh on Murray, Kirijax. I think that at this point we're in the post-big three/four era really. But for years we were in a situation where we had "the big three" made up of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Beneath them there was another big four, though not quite as big, who had more or less seperated themselves from the rest of the pack - delPotro, Tsonga, Ferrer and Berdych. Murray was somewere between these two groups. Although he didn't quite have the resume of the big three he was miles ahead of that second group. Considering him constantly being in the top four on the ranking list, him usually being in the mix at the business end of slams, his number of masters titles, and so on I've always considered him a member of "the big four" myself. The most vulnerable member of those big four perhaps, but nevertheless one of the four real contenders for the biggest trophees in the game, whereas if one of the lesser big four won something above masters 500 level it would be what we call an upset. These are all just words of course. If Murray would win the USO in a few months time one could argue that he's one of "the big two" of the moment. And he probably is. As we speak Murray seems like the most likely challenger to Novak on a consistent basis at the moment.

Yeah, I probably am being a bit harsh on him. And he is definitely the best of the rest but it's hard to even think of him as No. 2 right now because of his losing streaks against Djokovic and Federer.

 

[Federberg]

If Murray were to come up against Roger in the final at Flushing, I see only one result. Unless Roger has had to expend all his energy getting there. The basic point being that he'll need something to go his way for him to get the W. It's a situation that's not too dissimilar to Federer's predicament to be honest. Things have to go his way. As an aside, it's for this reason that I am constantly baffled about the negativity surrounding Federer's chances. Only Novak is in a better position to win slams right now. How the guy can be written off amazes me :cover

 

[jhar26]

If Murray were to come up against Roger in the final at Flushing, I see only one result. Unless Roger has had to expend all his energy getting there. The basic point being that he'll need something to go his way for him to get the W. It's a situation that's not too dissimilar to Federer's predicament to be honest. Things have to go his way. As an aside, it's for this reason that I am constantly baffled about the negativity surrounding Federer's chances. Only Novak is in a better position to win slams right now. How the guy can be written off amazes me :cover

I don't think that Federer is being witten off. The guy is still the number two player in the world, he's just been in a Wimbledon final, and so on. But we're currently in a situation where anyone other than Djokovic winning a major would be called an upset. If that upset were to happen Federer, Murray and Wawrinka are the most obvious candidates for it. But I think that Murray has a shot at all four while at this point Federer only has a shot at Wimbledon and the USO. And Stan is very unpredictable. He can lose in the first round but he can also win the entire thing. Nothing against Federer. I love him. If it was up to me he would win all four.

 

[El Dude]

Good post, Kirijax, although what you say here is just admitting to a truth that non-Murray fans have known for years. It is quite simple, really. Andy entered the elite in 2008 when he ended the year #4; since then he's been the overall fourth best player on tour, no more or less. It goes something like this:

Rafa, Novak, Roger

Andy Murray

Wawrinka, del Potro and everyone else

Andy can either be considered the "worst of the best" or the "best of the rest." Calling him one of the Big Four isn't entirely inaccurate in that he truly has been above everyone else, but there's also a big gap between him and the "Bigger Three." Although I do think you can make an argument that if you look at only 2011 to the present, Andy and Roger have been about equal.

But there's no shame in that. Roger, Rafa, and Novak are already among the five best players of the Open Era (along with Sampras and Borg). The simple fact that Andy has, at times, risen to their level - especially during that year from US Open in 2012 to Wimbledon in 2013 when he was right there with them.

 

[19USC66]

He has made a come back of sorts, but I still feel Andy falls short of the player he was in 2012. I am not sure we will ever see that guy again? However, it is good to see him get his ranking back.








Well thought out and well written Kirijax.

I really felt with the addition of Bjorkman to the team we would have seen a much more aggressive Murray at Wimbledon. A couple of people stated, that at his age, Andy isn't going to make any radical changes to his game. That may well be true.

He brought his "A" game against Roger, played well, and got beaten in three. What was worse, even though Andy played well, Roger's game put a rather glaring light on his shortcomings.
[/quote]

 

[Riotbeard]

To be fair though over the last two seasons, I would say Wawrinka is the player second most likely to win a slam after Novak. I can also tell you who Novak would be more afraid to draw.

To agree with BS, Andy also has a tendency to punch himself out when he tries to be aggressive with the forehand (Notable example is this years AO final, where he was exhausted after upping his game to take one set).

Andy is definitely going to be set apart from the rest of the field in the record books for this era as between the big 3 and the rest, but right now, I think to call him and djokovic the big 2, when all he has is one masters to his name is a bit of a stretch, when there are other people with more notable achievements over the past two seasons (Federer and Wawrinka), not to mention that Fed has given Andy some pretty crushing defeats these last two seasons.

 

[jhar26]

Good post, Kirijax, although what you say here is just admitting to a truth that non-Murray fans have known for years. It is quite simple, really. Andy entered the elite in 2008 when he ended the year #4; since then he's been the overall fourth best player on tour, no more or less. It goes something like this:

Rafa, Novak, Roger

Andy Murray

Wawrinka, del Potro and everyone else

Andy can either be considered the "worst of the best" or the "best of the rest." Calling him one of the Big Four isn't entirely inaccurate in that he truly has been above everyone else, but there's also a big gap between him and the "Bigger Three." Although I do think you can make an argument that if you look at only 2011 to the present, Andy and Roger have been about equal.

But there's no shame in that. Roger, Rafa, and Novak are already among the five best players of the Open Era (along with Sampras and Borg). The simple fact that Andy has, at times, risen to their level - especially during that year from US Open in 2012 to Wimbledon in 2013 when he was right there with them.

A lot will also depend on what Murray achieves from now on. If he wins another couple of majors, some more masters 1000's and/or a YEC and makes it to number one at some point like the others did history will in retrospect accept him as one of the big four of this era. One could argue that it wouldn't count since the big four thing has lost some of it's lustre with Nadal struggling and others like Wawrinka and Cilic getting into the mix, but that's no different than Federer and Nadal winning slams and dominating before Djokovic and to a lesser degree Murray made their move. But he'll always be regarded as the fourth best player of this era. Whether that makes him one of the big four or the best of the rest hardly matters. For me personally he's one of the big four because he's one of the four that I always regarded as the legitimate contenders for the biggest titles. Besides Federer, Nadal and Djokovic it was always Murray's name that came to my mind - not Berdych' or Tsonga's.

 

[BIG3]

Novak is clearly lights ahead of everyone else now and heavy favorite in every slams. Fed and Murray need draw's help. For instance, what if Nole dueled out with Stan in RG semi and Murray waited in another half, or Nole had to face Murray and Fed back to back in W19.

Murray is in very strong condition and only lost to Novak in AO/RG and Fed in W19. No shame about it. He needs to move #2 to enhance his chance. The same applies to Fed.

With Murray's leap on clay performance, IF Novak can surpass Rafa in slams figure, why Murray is barred from career slam? You never know.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Novak is clearly lights ahead of everyone else now and heavy favorite in every slams. Fed and Murray need draw's help. For instance, what if Nole dueled out with Stan in RG semi and Murray waited in another half, or Nole had to face Murray and Fed back to back in W19.

Murray is in very strong condition and only lost to Novak in AO/RG and Fed in W19. No shame about it. He needs to move #2 to enhance his chance. The same applies to Fed.

With Murray's leap on clay performance, IF Novak can surpass Rafa in slams figure, why Murray is barred from career slam? You never know.

FYI, Fed is #2.

 

[El Dude]

A lot will also depend on what Murray achieves from now on. If he wins another couple of majors, some more masters 1000's and/or a YEC and makes it to number one at some point like the others did history will in retrospect accept him as one of the big four of this era. One could argue that it wouldn't count since the big four thing has lost some of it's lustre with Nadal struggling and others like Wawrinka and Cilic getting into the mix, but that's no different than Federer and Nadal winning slams and dominating before Djokovic and to a lesser degree Murray made their move. But he'll always be regarded as the fourth best player of this era. Whether that makes him one of the big four or the best of the rest hardly matters. For me personally he's one of the big four because he's one of the four that I always regarded as the legitimate contenders for the biggest titles. Besides Federer, Nadal and Djokovic it was always Murray's name that came to my mind - not Berdych' or Tsonga's.

Yes, I hear you and agree. He is the Guillermo Vilas of his era. Vilas was a borderline great player who just happened to peak alongside better players in Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg, and then McEnroe and Lendl a bit as well. As with Vilas, history might not remember how good Murray was IF he doesn't win several more Slams. The eye of history tends to overemphasize Slams and miss nuances - like consistency, how deep a player goes into Slams, other tournaments, rankings, etc. For instance, on first blush one might think that Jan Kodes was a better player than Ilie Nastase, given that Kodes won 3 Slams to Nastase's 2. But Nastase won 58 titles to Kodes' 11, and Nastase also won 4 Tour Finals and was year-end #1 in 1973. The point being, Nastase was a better player - perhaps much better.

In a similar sense, Murray and Wawrinka both have 2 Slams but Murray has had a much better career. The difference, I think, is that Stan has a much better "champion mentality" and may be a better player when playing at his absolute best.

That said, I think Murray will win at least win another Slam or two.

 

[Fiero425]

Novak is clearly lights ahead of everyone else now and heavy favorite in every slams. Fed and Murray need draw's help. For instance, what if Nole dueled out with Stan in RG semi and Murray waited in another half, or Nole had to face Murray and Fed back to back in W19.

Murray is in very strong condition and only lost to Novak in AO/RG and Fed in W19. No shame about it. He needs to move #2 to enhance his chance. The same applies to Fed.

With Murray's leap on clay performance, IF Novak can surpass Rafa in slams figure, why Murray is barred from career slam? You never know.

FYI, Fed is #2.

Before defending his Wimbledon points, it was only a technicality! Murray has clearly been the 2nd best player of this season with a Masters win and finals to Nole in other tourneys! I hate saying that since I can't stand his game; as ugly as Rafa's IMO! I've been saying neither will last long, but Andy's at least doing a lot better than Nadal at the moment! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[herios]

Then Wimbledon came. Again in front of a home crowd, Murray was fortunate to have Djokovic in the final. Djokovic had just fought through an incredible 5-set match with del Potro and had to be feeling the effects of it. Murray himself had come from two sets down to escape Fernando Verdasco so it's difficult to see how he was feeling by the time of the final. But he was able to ride an emotional wave to the title.

The deciding factor in that Wimbledon was, IMO that Djokovic was spent after his SF by the time the final came along, while Andy's 5 setter against Verdasco was a QF, and his SF against Janowicz did not take a lot out of him. Andy had time to recover, Nole not so much.
Other than that, this was a great post kirijax