A Reevaluation of Andy Murray

[El Dude]

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

As I mentioned somewhere, it reminds me a bit of Jan Kodes with his 3 Slams to Ilie Nastase's 2. Kodes had 11 titles overall, and Nastase 58.

I wonder if any of the older folks on this forum can remember how both players were perceived. I imagine Nastase was considered the better player, and perhaps by a good margin.

But there are tons of one-Slam wonders that were inferior players to contemporaries with no Slams. Compare Albert Costa to, say, Marcelo Rios, Alex Corretja or Thomas Enqvist.

 

[dante1976]

@Kirijax, federberg
Thanks for the welcome... btw great Wimbledon 2015 review Kirijax (i've read it just now).
Great forum, lots of good debates (small amount of usual "my daddy is "GOAT" and surely would've crush yours, only if..." forums talk) and that's great.
I just love the game even though i have my favorites of course
Back to Andy... I was really hopping that Murray will become the true part of "big 4"... injuries and "choked mind", unfortunately for him, made that (at least for now) impossible... He must start doing some "Djoko mantras" constantly evolving and upgrading his game (2nd serve, attack more often, be cool when it matters most, etc.). Again i must repeat that imho his "technicalities" is great as others but mind troubles is what chokes his game (and not vice versa )
I mean just look at Rafa for example... monster forehand, great coverage and... "Great mind" and winning attitude But in his case physical problems usually makes his game weak (not big of a surprise because of his play style). So I hope Andy will find his ways into his good future... and Rafa ofc... for the overall quality of the game itself.

 

[Kirijax]

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

As I mentioned somewhere, it reminds me a bit of Jan Kodes with his 3 Slams to Ilie Nastase's 2. Kodes had 11 titles overall, and Nastase 58.

I wonder if any of the older folks on this forum can remember how both players were perceived. I imagine Nastase was considered the better player, and perhaps by a good margin.

But there are tons of one-Slam wonders that were inferior players to contemporaries with no Slams. Compare Albert Costa to, say, Marcelo Rios, Alex Corretja or Thomas Enqvist.

Good comparison El Dude. I started following tennis at the tail end of Nastase's career. I can remember then knowing who he was and but with Kodes I was like "who?" Even though Kodes won three, there is no doubt in anyone's mind who was the greater player. Heeeeeeeyyyyyyy wait a minute! Does this mean we would need to expand our GOAT players criteria beyond the slams and include things like the WTF? No, no, no, pretend I never said that.

 

[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

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.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he doesn't have great abilities, and you may well be correct in terms of his match up against Novak. Djokovic doesn't really try to exploit Andy's technical issues, but that doesn't mean they aren't glaringly obvious. But Andy's technical weaknesses were cruelly exploited by Roger, you surely can't deny that. The 2nd serve was just crushed. So much so, that it caused problems for his first serve. Furthermore, I don't know anyone else where Roger specifically introduces a knifing slice to the forehand side. It's effectively a down the line shot, and he did this repeatedly against Andy. He simply wasn't able to do anything with it and ended up being taken from a dominant situation in rallies to defensive. It was so clear. I just don't see the Big 3 as being so easily exploited.

Yes we can surely say that some of the guys target Federer's backhand, but the backhand is far from a flawed. It's a relative weakness yes, but it's not flawed.

 

[Great Hands]

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:

I completely disagree wit this.

th9ings i find boring:
overly offensive play
first strike tennis
shrot rallies
ball bashing


but each to tehri own!

 

[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.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he doesn't have great abilities, and you may well be correct in terms of his match up against Novak. Djokovic doesn't really try to exploit Andy's technical issues, but that doesn't mean they aren't glaringly obvious. But Andy's technical weaknesses were cruelly exploited by Roger, you surely can't deny that. The 2nd serve was just crushed. So much so, that it caused problems for his first serve. Furthermore, I don't know anyone else where Roger specifically introduces a knifing slice to the forehand side. It's effectively a down the line shot, and he did this repeatedly against Andy. He simply wasn't able to do anything with it and ended up being taken from a dominant situation in rallies to defensive. It was so clear. I just don't see the Big 3 as being so easily exploited.

Yes we can surely say that some of the guys target Federer's backhand, but the backhand is far from a flawed. It's a relative weakness yes, but it's not flawed.

Yeah, I get what you're saying federberg. The whole time I'm typing, I can't get Djokovic and his mastery of the overhead out of my mind. :snicker He is the clearest case of mind over ability I've ever seen. And his ability is so awesome but his mind is so strong that you kind of overlook it sometimes. The ATP version of Evert. But back to Murray. When it's not such a crucial moment, we've all seen him do incredible things. But when it's crunch time, he just seems to fold like a cheap tent. He let Djokovic almost come back from two sets down in the USO final. Who knows what would have happened if Djokovic had won that 4-5 game in the third set of the Wimbledon final. If Murray had the mind power of Djokovic, what a great rivalry we would have.

 

[Great Hands]

He's still playing a "STUPID," counter-punching game

Apart from the fact that I don't think Murray's game can, currently, be described as a counter-punching game (it's more varied than that, with plenty of attack in there), I'd just like to bring in a different perspective by asking: does anyone else out there actually enjoy counter-punching play, rather than thinking it is 'stupid', as you put it? Does anyone actually, like me, prefer it to offensive play? I find aggressive, first strike tennis much less interesting to watch than rallies that have time to breathe, develop and build tension.

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, because he is not as naturally offensive a player, but he is a highly skilled player and a joy to watch.

 

[Great Hands]

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.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he doesn't have great abilities, and you may well be correct in terms of his match up against Novak. Djokovic doesn't really try to exploit Andy's technical issues, but that doesn't mean they aren't glaringly obvious. But Andy's technical weaknesses were cruelly exploited by Roger, you surely can't deny that. The 2nd serve was just crushed. So much so, that it caused problems for his first serve. Furthermore, I don't know anyone else where Roger specifically introduces a knifing slice to the forehand side. It's effectively a down the line shot, and he did this repeatedly against Andy. He simply wasn't able to do anything with it and ended up being taken from a dominant situation in rallies to defensive. It was so clear. I just don't see the Big 3 as being so easily exploited.

Yes we can surely say that some of the guys target Federer's backhand, but the backhand is far from a flawed. It's a relative weakness yes, but it's not flawed.

Yeah, I get what you're saying federberg. The whole time I'm typing, I can't get Djokovic and his mastery of the overhead out of my mind. :snicker He is the clearest case of mind over ability I've ever seen. And his ability is so awesome but his mind is so strong that you kind of overlook it sometimes. The ATP version of Evert. But back to Murray. When it's not such a crucial moment, we've all seen him do incredible things. But when it's crunch time, he just seems to fold like a cheap tent. He let Djokovic almost come back from two sets down in the USO final. Who knows what would have happened if Djokovic had won that 4-5 game in the third set of the Wimbledon final. If Murray had the mind power of Djokovic, what a great rivalry we would have.

I agree that murray is not as mentally strong as Fedalovic, but that is a high yeardstick. murray's intensity and fighting spirit is one of the things that separates him for teh berdyches and tosngas, it's one of the things that make him as good as he is.

I would also add that it's easier to be mentally str5ong when you're the better palyer. fedfalodicv are all suprioir texchincally and athletciallty tro murray. [so murray would have to be even stronger than them mentally to have a chacne, and he isn;t, he's a bit qwekaer, but sitll pretty mentally strong.]

i mean, novak has a better first serve (in terms of consitstrneyc, placemtn, varioation), better second serve, better return, better fh, better bh, and he's a better athlete. that's a lot for andy to be fighting against before you even get to the mental side, which all this other stuff xcontributes to. has it ever occured to you that maybe it is murray's metnal fight that alows to be competitve aginst these guys atl al, given their surpior games?

 

[Federberg]

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.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he doesn't have great abilities, and you may well be correct in terms of his match up against Novak. Djokovic doesn't really try to exploit Andy's technical issues, but that doesn't mean they aren't glaringly obvious. But Andy's technical weaknesses were cruelly exploited by Roger, you surely can't deny that. The 2nd serve was just crushed. So much so, that it caused problems for his first serve. Furthermore, I don't know anyone else where Roger specifically introduces a knifing slice to the forehand side. It's effectively a down the line shot, and he did this repeatedly against Andy. He simply wasn't able to do anything with it and ended up being taken from a dominant situation in rallies to defensive. It was so clear. I just don't see the Big 3 as being so easily exploited.

Yes we can surely say that some of the guys target Federer's backhand, but the backhand is far from a flawed. It's a relative weakness yes, but it's not flawed.

Yeah, I get what you're saying federberg. The whole time I'm typing, I can't get Djokovic and his mastery of the overhead out of my mind. :snicker He is the clearest case of mind over ability I've ever seen. And his ability is so awesome but his mind is so strong that you kind of overlook it sometimes. The ATP version of Evert. But back to Murray. When it's not such a crucial moment, we've all seen him do incredible things. But when it's crunch time, he just seems to fold like a cheap tent. He let Djokovic almost come back from two sets down in the USO final. Who knows what would have happened if Djokovic had won that 4-5 game in the third set of the Wimbledon final. If Murray had the mind power of Djokovic, what a great rivalry we would have.

I won't disagree with you about Novak and overheads :clap I'm not sure anyone is going to try to build a strategy trying to exploit that though. To be fair, I think match up has a lot to do with this issue. In some matches it is reasonable to say that Andy's problem is mental. There's no doubt there is a big mental issue against Novak. I wouldn't say there's a mental issue against Roger though. That's just plain technical to me. Is that fair?

 

[Great Hands]

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 would disagree that the Murray-Djokovic distinction has nothing to do with ability. I agree that Murray is not as mentally strong as Fedalovic, but that is a high yardstick. Murray's intensity and fighting spirit is one of the things that actually separates him for the Berdyches and Tsongas, it's one of the things that make him as good as he is.

I would also add that it's easier to be mentally strong when you're the better player. Fedalovic are all superior technically and athletically to Murray.

I mean, Novak has a better (not faster, but better) first serve, better second serve, better return, better FH, better BH, and he's a better athlete. So he's basically better than Andy, technically and athetically, in almost every deparment. That's a lot for Andy to be fighting against before you even get to the mental side, which all this other stuff contributes to. I think it is actually partly Murray's mental strength that alows to be competitive against these guys at all, given their superior games.

I think that the degree to which the mental component has lost Murray matches is over-rated.

Murray's sometimes grumpy demeanour on court doesn't seem to stop him beating the vast majority of players. In fact, many times he shouts at himself and then plays a great shot. There was a tournament last year - I think it was Miami - where Murray was not playing well, and kind of let out a loud scream, and then played great and won the match. He said afterwards something along the lines of 'sometimes you have to let out the frustration, you can't hold it in', and it actually helped him to play better. The thing is, when he wins, his grumpiness on court is often not mentioned, but when he loses it suddenly becomes the reason he lost.

For example, in the recent AO final, the dominant narrative seemed to be 'Murray lost because he was mentally weak', whereas the narrative that 'Murray lost because Djokovic has superior groundstrokes and athleticism', which in my opinion is just as important, if not more so, seems to get overlooked.

Murray has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 25 times. I looked at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website a while back, and found that Andy has:

An excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
He's 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Laver, Agassi, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
He is 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
He's 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbledon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

Did Murray's at times negative mindset sometimes negatively affect his play, especially pre-Lendl? Yes. Has he sometimes had trouble resetting mentally, especially in big matches? Yes. Has this affected his slam count? No, because the big 3 are just too good anyway.

Some mental issues? Yes. But I think his mental problems against Fedalovic have been just as much, if not more, caused by technical and athletic issues.

 

[Great Hands]

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 would disagree that the Murray-Djokovic distinction has nothing to do with ability. I agree that Murray is not as mentally strong as Fedalovic, but that is a high yardstick. Murray's intensity and fighting spirit is one of the things that actually separates him for the Berdyches and Tsongas, it's one of the things that make him as good as he is.

I would also add that it's easier to be mentally strong when you're the better player. Fedalovic are all superior technically and athletically to Murray.

I mean, Novak has a better (not faster, but better) first serve, better second serve, better return, better FH, better BH, and he's a better athlete. So he's basically better than Andy, technically and athetically, in almost every deparment. That's a lot for Andy to be fighting against before you even get to the mental side, which all this other stuff contributes to. I think it is actually partly Murray's mental strength that alows to be competitive against these guys at all, given their superior games.

I think that the degree to which the mental component has lost Murray matches is over-rated.

Murray's sometimes grumpy demeanour on court doesn't seem to stop him beating the vast majority of players. In fact, many times he shouts at himself and then plays a great shot. There was a tournament last year - I think it was Miami - where Murray was not playing well, and kind of let out a loud scream, and then played great and won the match. He said afterwards something along the lines of 'sometimes you have to let out the frustration, you can't hold it in', and it actually helped him to play better. The thing is, when he wins, his grumpiness on court is often not mentioned, but when he loses it suddenly becomes the reason he lost.

For example, in the recent AO final, the dominant narrative seemed to be 'Murray lost because he was mentally weak', whereas the narrative that 'Murray lost because Djokovic has superior groundstrokes and athleticism', which in my opinion is just as important, if not more so, seems to get overlooked.

Murray has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 25 times. I looked at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website a while back, and found that Andy has:

An excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
He's 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Laver, Agassi, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
He is 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
He's 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbledon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

Did Murray's at times negative mindset sometimes negatively affect his play, especially pre-Lendl? Yes. Has he sometimes had trouble resetting mentally, especially in big matches? Yes. Has this affected his slam count? No, because the big 3 are just too good anyway.

Some mental issues? Yes. But I think his mental problems against Fedalovic have been just as much, if not more, caused by technical and athletic issues.

 

[Kirijax]

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he doesn't have great abilities, and you may well be correct in terms of his match up against Novak. Djokovic doesn't really try to exploit Andy's technical issues, but that doesn't mean they aren't glaringly obvious. But Andy's technical weaknesses were cruelly exploited by Roger, you surely can't deny that. The 2nd serve was just crushed. So much so, that it caused problems for his first serve. Furthermore, I don't know anyone else where Roger specifically introduces a knifing slice to the forehand side. It's effectively a down the line shot, and he did this repeatedly against Andy. He simply wasn't able to do anything with it and ended up being taken from a dominant situation in rallies to defensive. It was so clear. I just don't see the Big 3 as being so easily exploited.

Yes we can surely say that some of the guys target Federer's backhand, but the backhand is far from a flawed. It's a relative weakness yes, but it's not flawed.

Yeah, I get what you're saying federberg. The whole time I'm typing, I can't get Djokovic and his mastery of the overhead out of my mind. :snicker He is the clearest case of mind over ability I've ever seen. And his ability is so awesome but his mind is so strong that you kind of overlook it sometimes. The ATP version of Evert. But back to Murray. When it's not such a crucial moment, we've all seen him do incredible things. But when it's crunch time, he just seems to fold like a cheap tent. He let Djokovic almost come back from two sets down in the USO final. Who knows what would have happened if Djokovic had won that 4-5 game in the third set of the Wimbledon final. If Murray had the mind power of Djokovic, what a great rivalry we would have.

I won't disagree with you about Novak and overheads :clap I'm not sure anyone is going to try to build a strategy trying to exploit that though. To be fair, I think match up has a lot to do with this issue. In some matches it is reasonable to say that Andy's problem is mental. There's no doubt there is a big mental issue against Novak. I wouldn't say there's a mental issue against Roger though. That's just plain technical to me. Is that fair?

Fair enough. But Federer is the king of technique to me. He just no longer has the body or maybe even mental fortitude to back it up.

 

[Federberg]

^Agreed

 

[Great Hands]

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 disagree that the Murray-Djokovic distinction has nothing to do with ability.

Novak has a better (not faster, but better) first serve, better second serve, better return, better FH, better BH, and he's a better athlete. So he's basically better than Andy, technically and athletically, in almost every department. That's a lot for Andy to be fighting against before you even get to the mental side, which all this other stuff contributes to. I think it is actually partly Murray's mental strength that allows to be competitive against Fedalovic at all, given their superior games.

For Murray to beat Fedalovic, they have to underperform. I have always been a huge Murray fan, and I have never been under any illusions about this. That is how it has always been. That is how it was in Murray's 1 win over them so far this year, in the Madrid final. Or does anyone think Nadal brought his A game to that match?

The fact that you described Murray's loss to Fed at WD this year 'as a rude awakening', causing you to 'reevaluate' Murray, suggests to me that you did not realise this beofre. I always had Fed as a heavy favourite for that match. For Murray to have a chance of winning, Fed would have had to underperform. He didn't.

Murray's matches against Fedalovic are not on his racket. If they bring their A games, he will lose.
There is no shame in this - Fed and Nadal are in the all-time top 3, and Novak is in the all-time top 10 and rising. Andy, though a great player, is just not at this kind of level.

I agree that Murray is not as mentally strong as Fedalovic, but that is a high yardstick. Murray's intensity and fighting spirit is one of the things that actually separates him for the Berdyches and Tsongas, it's one of the things that make him as good as he is.

I would also add that it's easier to be mentally strong when you're the better player. Fedalovic are all superior technically and athletically to Murray, which contributes to the mentality.

Murray has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 25 times. I looked at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website a while back, and found that Andy has:

An excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
He's 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Laver, Agassi, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
He is 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
He's 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbledon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

Did Murray's at times negative mindset sometimes negatively affect his play, especially pre-Lendl? Yes. Has he sometimes had trouble resetting mentally, especially in big matches? Yes. Has this affected his slam count? No, because Fedalovic are just too good anyway.

Some mental issues? Yes. But I think his mental problems against Fedalovic have been just as much, if not more, caused by technical and athletic issues.

 

[Great Hands]

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 disagree with this.

Novak has a better (not faster, but better) first serve, better second serve, better return, better FH, better BH, and he's a better athlete. So he's basically better than Andy, technically and athletically, in almost every department. That's a lot for Andy to be fighting against before you even get to the mental side, which all this other stuff contributes to.

So really, the question should not be 'Why doesn't Andy beat Novak more often?', but 'How has Andy managed to beat Novak 8 times when Novak is superior to him in almost every way?'
The answer is that the margins by which Novak is better are small enough that if he is not at his best, and if Andy is playing well, Andy can win.

For Murray to beat Fedalovic, they have to underperform. I have always been a huge Murray fan, and I have never been under any illusions about this. That is how it has always been. That is how it was in Murray's 1 win over them so far this year, in the Madrid final. Or does anyone think Nadal brought his A game to that match?

The fact that you described Murray's loss to Fed at WD this year 'as a rude awakening', causing you to 'reevaluate' Murray, suggests to me that you did not realise this before. I always had Fed as a heavy favourite for that match. For Murray to have a chance of winning, Fed would have had to underperform. He didn't.

Murray's matches against Fedalovic are not on his racket. If they bring their A games, he will lose.
There is no shame in this - Fed and Nadal are in the all-time top 3, and Novak is in the all-time top 10 and rising. Andy, though a great player, is just not at this kind of level.

I agree that Murray is not as mentally strong as Fedalovic, but that is a high yardstick. Murray's intensity and fighting spirit is one of the things that actually separates him for the Berdyches and Tsongas, it's one of the things that makes him as good as he is.
I think it is actually partly Murray's mental strength that allows to be competitive against Fedalovic at all, given their superior games.

I would also add that it's easier to be mentally strong when you're the better player. Fedalovic are all superior technically and athletically to Murray, which contributes to the mentality.

Murray has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 25 times. I looked at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website a while back, and found that Andy has:

An excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
He's 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Laver, Agassi, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
He is 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
He's 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbledon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

In other words, he has a lot of mental strength, and his supposed mental weakness is entirely due to having to play 3 better players.

Did Murray's at times negative mindset sometimes negatively affect his play, especially pre-Lendl? Yes. Has he sometimes had trouble resetting mentally, especially in big matches? Yes. Has this affected his slam count? No, because Fedalovic are just too good anyway.

Some mental issues? Yes. But I think his mental problems against Fedalovic have been just as much, if not more, caused by technical and athletic issues.

 

[Great Hands]

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 always enjoy reading your posts Kirijax, but I must respectfully disagree with this.

Novak has a better (not faster, but better) first serve, better second serve, better return, better FH, better BH, and he's a better athlete. So he's basically better than Andy, technically and athletically, in almost every department. That's a lot for Andy to be fighting against before you even get to the mental side, which all this other stuff contributes to.

So really, the question should not be 'Why doesn't Andy beat Novak more often?', but 'How has Andy managed to beat Novak 8 times when Novak is superior to him in almost every way?'
The answer is that the margins by which Novak is better are small enough that if he is not at his best, and if Andy is playing well, Andy can win.

For Murray to beat Fedalovic, they have to underperform. I have always been a huge Murray fan, and I have never been under any illusions about this. That is how it has always been. That is how it was in Murray's 1 win over them so far this year, in the Madrid final. Or does anyone think Nadal brought his A game to that match?

The fact that you described Murray's loss to Fed at WD this year as a 'rude awakening', causing you to 'reevaluate' Murray, suggests to me that you did not realise this before. I always had Fed as a heavy favourite for that match. For Murray to have a chance of winning, Fed would have had to underperform. He didn't.

Murray's matches against Fedalovic are not on his racket. If they bring their A games, he will lose.
There is no shame in this - Fed and Nadal are in the all-time top 3, and Novak is in the all-time top 10 and rising. Andy, though a great player, is just not at this kind of level.

I agree that Murray is not as mentally strong as Fedalovic, but that is a high yardstick. Murray's intensity and fighting spirit is one of the things that actually separates him from the Berdyches and Tsongas, it's one of the things that makes him as good as he is.
I think it is actually partly Murray's mental strength that allows to be competitive against Fedalovic at all, given their superior games.

I would also add that it's easier to be mentally strong when you're the better player. Fedalovic are all superior technically and athletically to Murray, which contributes to the mentality.

Murray has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 25 times. I looked at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website a while back, and found that Andy:

Had an excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
Was 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Agassi, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
Was 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
Was 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbledon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

In other words, he has a lot of mental strength, and his supposed mental weakness is due to having to play 3 of the greatest players ever to hold a racket.

I'm not saying Murray hasn't had mental issues, but I think his mental problems against Fedalovic have been just as much, if not more, caused by technical and athletic issues.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Yeah, I get what you're saying federberg. The whole time I'm typing, I can't get Djokovic and his mastery of the overhead out of my mind. :snicker He is the clearest case of mind over ability I've ever seen. And his ability is so awesome but his mind is so strong that you kind of overlook it sometimes. The ATP version of Evert. But back to Murray. When it's not such a crucial moment, we've all seen him do incredible things. But when it's crunch time, he just seems to fold like a cheap tent. He let Djokovic almost come back from two sets down in the USO final. Who knows what would have happened if Djokovic had won that 4-5 game in the third set of the Wimbledon final. If Murray had the mind power of Djokovic, what a great rivalry we would have.

It's really remarkable how the rivalry changed after the US Open 2012. At that point Djokovic led 8:7 in the head-to-head, but Murray was catching up and seemed the most difficult match-up for Djokovic as he struggled to hit through Murray and regularly lost his patience at some point when they played against each other. The next three matches at Shanghai, the World Tour Finals and the Australian Open, where Djokovic won after being a set down each time, were very important in my opinion, as Djokovic discovered that he has a good chance to win by outlasting Murray.

Before their match at the US Open last year Djokovic even stated, that he feels somewhat comfortable playing Murray as he feels if he makes Murray work hard for everything from the beginning he will have a physical advantage deep in the match. Additionaly Djokovic's serve improved steadily throughout the last few years, whereas Murray's probably declined a bit after the back surgery. So Djokovic scores more free or easy points on serve now, which makes a huge difference between players that have a very similar level from the baseline and probably allows him to play more freely in the rallies.

I still think especially in the Grand Slams Djokovic prefers not to play Murray before the final as even when he wins there are big chances it will be an intense, physically tough match that lasts for at least 4 sets and 3 hours that takes a lot out of him.

 

[Kieran]

A semi-serious article by the excellent author, Howard Jacobson, with some sound advice for Muzza:

Don’t expect other players to co-operate in your success. Don’t wait for them to give you points. Win your own. You have thunderous strokes. It breaks the heart to see you not using them. Softly softly catchee monkey, but you don’t want to catchee monkey, you want to breakee monkey’s balls.