A Reevaluation of Andy Murray

[Federberg]

Have never understood Murray's approach to playing the Big 3. He is bigger and stronger than all of them. Yet, he continues to accept being dictated to. There is no technical reason for Murray to do this, it's psychological. Having played like this for so long, i think it will be too hard for him to change his approach, at least for any extended length of time in a match. Lendl did have Murray headed in that direction, but it didn't stick after they parted ways. Not sure what Mauresmo has him doing, other than going bigger on the 2nd serve. And that serve (1st & 2nd) is not nearly what it could and should be. Why Murray waited so long to make the change to his 2nd serve is puzzling. He's still technically all over the place, tends to sway into it instead of popping with his legs. These are things that could, and were, being said about Novak's game before he made the changes 5 years ago. What the heck has been holding Murray back from doing similar things?

I'm not sure what size has to do with it though. Otherwise Karlovic would be no 1. I don't think his problem is psychological at all. As Federer ruthlessly showed in his semifinal win against Andy, there are gaping flaws that can be exploited. It's a wonder that more players don't try the same thing, so I would definitely class the reasons for his lack of success as technical at the very highest level. The problems are much discussed, his 2nd serve and his forehand in particularly. Furthermore his first serve is too much of a lottery shot. It's more powerful than any of the Big 3, but it lacks the same variation and subtlety that Novak and Roger can execute. That said, he is simply too good not to win more slams.

Btw, I was at the Tesco in Borehamwood yesterday :laydownlaughing Are you a local?

 

[Federberg]

The Andy Murray-Guillermo Vilas comparison is very good. Someone else has brought it up before but it definitely applies here.

The stats are very similar. Vilas has a couple of cheap Slams that he won at the Australian Open. He defeated career-high No. 44 and 0 titlist John Marks in 1978 and career-high No. 14 and 2-titles John Sadri in 1979. Vilas did win the (what is now) World Tour Final in 1974. He has a whole lot more tour titles, including nine of what would be today's Masters 1000.
Vilas had a .500 mark vs. Connors-McEnroe (10-10) but had trouble with Borg (5-17). Vilas met Borg in two French Open finals and went down in straight sets both times.

It will be interesting to see how people rank Vilas and Murray when Murray's career is over.

If you look at the cold, hard numbers there seems to be similarities, but I can't agree in reality! Vilas was a legitimate GS winner who just happened to play against someone more superior in Borg! Vilas wasn't as vulnerable as Murray IMO, winning on clay routinely when Borg wasn't there! Murray can't say that; save this season with a couple events! Vilas had a 50+ match winning streak; never happen with Murray! Vilas sabotaged his own career by getting busted taking appearance money! I can only remember the one suspension for that offense, but it could have happened more often behind the scenes to protect the game! He had a ton of ability and desire, but having Ion Tiriac as his manager put him on a course of self-destruction acquiring money IMO! Becker didn't fair much better in his personal life listening to that guy's counsel! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Yup. Number of titles is a big thing for me. Andy has some way to go to match Vilas. But on his current trajectory he probably will

 

[Great Hands]

Have never understood Murray's approach to playing the Big 3. He is bigger and stronger than all of them. Yet, he continues to accept being dictated to. There is no technical reason for Murray to do this,

Yes there is. As Broken Shoelace pointed out in excellent detail earlier in this thread, his FH is inferior to them, making dictating play against them difficult.


Having played like this for so long, i think it will be too hard for him to change his approach, at least for any extended length of time in a match. Lendl did have Murray headed in that direction, but it didn't stick after they parted ways.

Nope. Murray is more aggressive now, in court position and in going for for the fh, then he was pre-lendl. he was more aggressdive thro7ugnout 2014 too, but he wasn't right physciallty. idiots like henman and ruswedski going on about how he 'stopped playing agresive after lendl' - i think they need to actualyl watch his matches.


Not sure what Mauresmo has him doing, other than going bigger on the 2nd serve. And that serve (1st & 2nd) is not nearly what it could and should be. Why Murray waited so long to make the change to his 2nd serve is puzzling. He's still technically all over the place, tends to sway into it instead of popping with his legs. These are things that could, and were, being said about Novak's game before he made the changes 5 years ago. What the heck has been holding Murray back from doing similar things?

I'm not sure what size has to do with it though. Otherwise Karlovic would be no 1. I don't think his problem is psychological at all. As Federer ruthlessly showed in his semifinal win against Andy, there are gaping flaws that can be exploited. It's a wonder that more players don't try the same thing, so I would definitely class the reasons for his lack of success as technical at the very highest level. The problems are much discussed, his 2nd serve and his forehand in particularly. Furthermore his first serve is too much of a lottery shot. It's more powerful than any of the Big 3, but it lacks the same variation and subtlety that Novak and Roger can execute. That said, he is simply too good not to win more slams.

Btw, I was at the Tesco in Borehamwood yesterday :laydownlaughing Are you a local?

Exactly. This 'Murray's issues are all psychological against the big 3' nonsense drives me mad. Fedalovic are technically and athletically superior as well.



i know that novk imporved his fh, and this was an important part of his 2011 success. his fh used to be considered a wekaness, now it is not. my question is: what did novak change about his fh, tehcinically, to impiorve it? did he change this just in the off season betyween 2010 and 2011?

 

[Great Hands]

As a huge Murray fan, I totally agree with many of these points but I find it kind of funny that we have a thread about this now since I, and presumably anyone who knows about tennis, has known all this for years. So this is not a 'reevaluation' of Murray!

For Murray to beat Fedalovic, they need to underperform.

This is how it always has been. I have never been under any illusions about this.

He's still a great player. He has as many slams as greats like Rafter, Safin, Hewitt etc. You can argue he's even better than them already on the basis of his overall career and the toughness of his competition.

Broken Shoelace's analysis was great. Murray's game, especially his forehand, is not as naturally suited to offensive play which, unfortunately, tends to win you slams. My favourite things to watch in tennis are:
1. Amazing defense
2. Great hands/touch/feel
3. Variety of shot, pace and spin
4. Long rallies
5. Cat and mouse play
6. Point construction
7. Tactical adjustments

Can you see why I'm a Murray fan? Some of the things he does so well are more subtle pleasures - it's not all about pounding winners. His ability to place the ball in awkward positions for opponents, his preternatural anticipation of, for example, smashes. His returning is amazing to see - the way he steps in on the second serve and controls it - no other player has the hands to do that. His BH is a thing of beauty. Murray's gifts may not win him as many slams as some others but he is a highly skilled player and a joy to watch.


ther seems to be an obesssion with first stike tennis, aggresive , attakcing play, and winners. but i like long rallies and

 

[Kirijax]

The Andy Murray-Guillermo Vilas comparison is very good. Someone else has brought it up before but it definitely applies here.

The stats are very similar. Vilas has a couple of cheap Slams that he won at the Australian Open. He defeated career-high No. 44 and 0 titlist John Marks in 1978 and career-high No. 14 and 2-titles John Sadri in 1979. Vilas did win the (what is now) World Tour Final in 1974. He has a whole lot more tour titles, including nine of what would be today's Masters 1000.
Vilas had a .500 mark vs. Connors-McEnroe (10-10) but had trouble with Borg (5-17). Vilas met Borg in two French Open finals and went down in straight sets both times.

It will be interesting to see how people rank Vilas and Murray when Murray's career is over.

If you look at the cold, hard numbers there seems to be similarities, but I can't agree in reality! Vilas was a legitimate GS winner who just happened to play against someone more superior in Borg! Vilas wasn't as vulnerable as Murray IMO, winning on clay routinely when Borg wasn't there! Murray can't say that; save this season with a couple events! Vilas had a 50+ match winning streak; never happen with Murray! Vilas sabotaged his own career by getting busted taking appearance money! I can only remember the one suspension for that offense, but it could have happened more often behind the scenes to protect the game! He had a ton of ability and desire, but having Ion Tiriac as his manager put him on a course of self-destruction acquiring money IMO! Becker didn't fair much better in his personal life listening to that guy's counsel! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Yup. Number of titles is a big thing for me. Andy has some way to go to match Vilas. But on his current trajectory he probably will

You think Murray will reach 60+ titles? He'd better get busy. Still 28 titles behind Vilas.

 

[Federberg]

If you look at the cold, hard numbers there seems to be similarities, but I can't agree in reality! Vilas was a legitimate GS winner who just happened to play against someone more superior in Borg! Vilas wasn't as vulnerable as Murray IMO, winning on clay routinely when Borg wasn't there! Murray can't say that; save this season with a couple events! Vilas had a 50+ match winning streak; never happen with Murray! Vilas sabotaged his own career by getting busted taking appearance money! I can only remember the one suspension for that offense, but it could have happened more often behind the scenes to protect the game! He had a ton of ability and desire, but having Ion Tiriac as his manager put him on a course of self-destruction acquiring money IMO! Becker didn't fair much better in his personal life listening to that guy's counsel! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Yup. Number of titles is a big thing for me. Andy has some way to go to match Vilas. But on his current trajectory he probably will

You think Murray will reach 60+ titles? He'd better get busy. Still 28 titles behind Vilas.

If he gets over 50, and has 5 slams I'll give him the nod

 

[Fiero425]

Yup. Number of titles is a big thing for me. Andy has some way to go to match Vilas. But on his current trajectory he probably will

You think Murray will reach 60+ titles? He'd better get busy. Still 28 titles behind Vilas.

If he gets over 50, and has 5 slams I'll give him the nod

You're dreamin'! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - I'd put down anything that Murray won't get anywhere near that; esp. with the trajectory he's on now! He's regressed even if playing better! He's still playing a "STUPID," counter-punching game that won't win him much against the true elites! Someone mentioned he was more aggressive in '07 & '08; which is why I've been down on him and his accomplishments! There should be so much more but for his defensive way of playing the game! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kirijax]

You think Murray will reach 60+ titles? He'd better get busy. Still 28 titles behind Vilas.

If he gets over 50, and has 5 slams I'll give him the nod

You're dreamin'! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - I'd put anything that Murray won't get anywhere near that; esp. with the trajectory he's on now! He's regressed even if playing better! He's still playing a "STUPID," counter-punching game that won't win him much against the true elites! Someone mentioned he was more aggressive in '07 & '08; which is why I've been down on him and his accomplishments! There should be so much more but for his defensive way of playing the game! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

OK, now you got me confused. In the last post you said "Andy has some way to go to match Vilas. But on his current trajectory he probably will". But now he is heading down. I missed something. :huh:

 

[Fiero425]

If he gets over 50, and has 5 slams I'll give him the nod

You're dreamin'! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - I'd put anything that Murray won't get anywhere near that; esp. with the trajectory he's on now! He's regressed even if playing better! He's still playing a "STUPID," counter-punching game that won't win him much against the true elites! Someone mentioned he was more aggressive in '07 & '08; which is why I've been down on him and his accomplishments! There should be so much more but for his defensive way of playing the game! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

OK, now you got me confused. In the last post you said "Andy has some way to go to match Vilas. But on his current trajectory he probably will". But now he is heading down. I missed something. :huh:

Unless I'm drunk and forgot, you must be talking about someone else! I don't give Murray credit in winning anything; maybe being more a legitimate #2 because of present results with wins on clay and grass recently! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: - Unfortunately his 'semi' results against Nole @ the FO and Roger @ Wimbledon doesn't translate into better results in order to catch Vilas! Those were his best opportunities and fell woefully short of expectations! :eyepop :cover

 

[Kirijax]

You're dreamin'! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover - I'd put anything that Murray won't get anywhere near that; esp. with the trajectory he's on now! He's regressed even if playing better! He's still playing a "STUPID," counter-punching game that won't win him much against the true elites! Someone mentioned he was more aggressive in '07 & '08; which is why I've been down on him and his accomplishments! There should be so much more but for his defensive way of playing the game! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

OK, now you got me confused. In the last post you said "Andy has some way to go to match Vilas. But on his current trajectory he probably will". But now he is heading down. I missed something. :huh:

Unless I'm drunk and forgot, you must be talking about someone else! I don't give Murray credit in winning anything; maybe being more a legitimate #2 because of present results with wins on clay and grass recently! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: - Unfortunately his results against Nole at the FO and Roger at Wimbledon doesn't translate into better results in order to catch Vilas! Those were his best opportunities and fell woefully short of expectations! :eyepop :cover

k

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If you look at the cold, hard numbers there seems to be similarities, but I can't agree in reality! Vilas was a legitimate GS winner who just happened to play against someone more superior in Borg! Vilas wasn't as vulnerable as Murray IMO, winning on clay routinely when Borg wasn't there! Murray can't say that; save this season with a couple events! Vilas had a 50+ match winning streak; never happen with Murray! Vilas sabotaged his own career by getting busted taking appearance money! I can only remember the one suspension for that offense, but it could have happened more often behind the scenes to protect the game! He had a ton of ability and desire, but having Ion Tiriac as his manager put him on a course of self-destruction acquiring money IMO! Becker didn't fair much better in his personal life listening to that guy's counsel! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Yup. Number of titles is a big thing for me. Andy has some way to go to match Vilas. But on his current trajectory he probably will

You think Murray will reach 60+ titles? He'd better get busy. Still 28 titles behind Vilas.

If Andy gets over 60, they will discover that few titles of Vilas did not get recorded in the books due to clerical error. lot

 

[Fiero425]

Yup. Number of titles is a big thing for me. Andy has some way to go to match Vilas. But on his current trajectory he probably will

You think Murray will reach 60+ titles? He'd better get busy. Still 28 titles behind Vilas.

If Andy gets over 60, they will discover that few titles of Vilas did not get recorded in the books due to clerical error. lot

It wouldn't be the first time! When Martina N. was approaching Evert's winning streak of 56, it came to light that one of the matches counted was a default of an injured player; s/b 55 in a row! Thirty years later they discovered a computer error neglecting to give Evonne Goolagong credit for being #1 for 2 weeks! There are other instances of corrections when they look a little closer to related events! It's happened before and it'll happen again! :cover :nono :angel:

 

[brokenshoelace]

Have never understood Murray's approach to playing the Big 3. He is bigger and stronger than all of them. Yet, he continues to accept being dictated to. There is no technical reason for Murray to do this, it's psychological.

Welcome to the forums.

Now with all due respect, don't you think this is an absurd notion? A tennis player who's been 4th best for virtually his entire career just "accepts" something and never attempts to change it? He HAS tried, we see him trying to dictate, and still it's not enough. The idea that he's "stronger" is misleading. Federer takes the ball earlier and has a much better offensive arsenal, so he's the one dictating and his shots look like they have more bite, thus negating the "stronger" part. As far as Murray being stronger than prime Nadal or Djokovic, I'll go ahead and say no to that one. Even if true, they simply have weapons that he lacks. This is a fact, not an opinion. Murray's forehand isn't as good, and it's not some psychological barrier. Psychology never prevented anyone from hitting a down the line forehand for 10 years.

Having played like this for so long, i think it will be too hard for him to change his approach, at least for any extended length of time in a match. Lendl did have Murray headed in that direction, but it didn't stick after they parted ways. Not sure what Mauresmo has him doing, other than going bigger on the 2nd serve. And that serve (1st & 2nd) is not nearly what it could and should be. Why Murray waited so long to make the change to his 2nd serve is puzzling. He's still technically all over the place, tends to sway into it instead of popping with his legs. These are things that could, and were, being said about Novak's game before he made the changes 5 years ago. What the heck has been holding Murray back from doing similar things?

This on the other hand, is spot on.

 

[dante1976]

Mind is and always been Andy's biggest problem
Just imagine the score after that 2nd set tie breaker if it was Murray playing instead of Djoko? 3rd and 4th set would end up like 6:1, 6:0 for Fed of course.
Technically speaking he is on par with "big 3" but mentally... unfortunately for him, way lower... His career results are "smoking gun" for that fact.

 

[Kirijax]

Mind is and always been Andy's biggest problem
Just imagine the score after that 2nd set tie breaker if it was Murray playing instead of Djoko? 3rd and 4th set would end up like 6:1, 6:0 for Fed of course.
Technically speaking he is on par with "big 3" but mentally... unfortunately for him, way lower... His career results are "smoking gun" for that fact.

Hi dante1976! Welcome to Tennis Frontier! Thanks for the input! I totally agree.

 

[Federberg]

^ I strongly disagree. Technically speaking Andy is way below the Big 3. That's the fundamental problem. They simply don't have the exploitable weaknesses that Andy has. I think his problems are more technical than mental. In fact the mental occurs because of the technical. Against anyone else but Big 3, he gets away with it. To be perfectly honest, even against the Big 3, only Roger specifically dines on his weaknesses, and this last one should be called an idiots guide to beating Andy Murray

 

[Federberg]

And welcome Dante

 

[Kirijax]

^ I strongly disagree. Technically speaking Andy is way below the Big 3. That's the fundamental problem. They simply don't have the exploitable weaknesses that Andy has. I think his problems are more technical than mental. In fact the mental occurs because of the technical. Against anyone else but Big 3, he gets away with it. To be perfectly honest, even against the Big 3, only Roger specifically dines on his weaknesses, and this last one should be called an idiots guide to beating Andy Murray

Will have to disagree. Murray has his own set of abilities and they are great to watch. But the greatest difference between Murray and Djokovic is their mental strength at crunch time. This is what separates them, not their abilities but their mental fortitude.

 

[herios]

The most amusing thing would be to see Stan winning another slam or Cilic to win his second before Andy wins one more.

 

[El Dude]

^ I strongly disagree. Technically speaking Andy is way below the Big 3. That's the fundamental problem. They simply don't have the exploitable weaknesses that Andy has. I think his problems are more technical than mental. In fact the mental occurs because of the technical. Against anyone else but Big 3, he gets away with it. To be perfectly honest, even against the Big 3, only Roger specifically dines on his weaknesses, and this last one should be called an idiots guide to beating Andy Murray

Will have to disagree. Murray has his own set of abilities and they are great to watch. But the greatest difference between Murray and Djokovic is their mental strength at crunch time. This is what separates them, not their abilities but their mental fortitude.

I'm going to come into this and say it is both. Djokovic is both mentally stronger than Murray, but also has better ability - his game overall is just better.