Andy Murray: Best moves for 2014

[Moxie]

People have been recommending what he should do, or what's up for him, on other threads. So why not give him his own thread?

Obviously, a brisk showing at the end of 2013 would help. Strong stand at the AO. And, obviously, he shouldn't let clay just run by the wayside. When is Andy's most likely next big moment? And what should his strategy by for 2014?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Just a little bit of consistency in the Masters 1000 events (he's been having some post-slam lulls for the past couple of years), and a decent clay season. The latter is difficult because clay really doesn't suit his game.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I might be wrong but I have sensed a bit of loss fire from him after the Wimby win. Though it might be expected and even somewhat understandable, he should snap out of it soon and have the desire back. The rest will take care of itself. I would want him to have a better clay court season as well. You cannot just say I am not good at it. You have the example of Nadal in front of you. You can be good on any surface if you work at it.

 

[Riotbeard]

This is a tough question. If andy is only capable of paying attention to either slams or masters then obviously keeps paying attention to slams, but he really needs consistency, but there some reason to ask how possible that is as he has never been able to win at both...

 

[ClayDeath]

the most important thing for andy to fix that back once and for all. he was hurting pretty badly during the clay season.


it has hampered him for a long time.


it was just magical what he pulled off in queens and at Wimbledon. I would like to see him have a great year in 2014. he needs to win one of the hard court slams and make a good showing at some of the hard court masters events.

 

[Iona16]

I might be wrong but I have sensed a bit of loss fire from him after the Wimby win. Though it might be expected and even somewhat understandable, he should snap out of it soon and have the desire back. The rest will take care of itself. I would want him to have a better clay court season as well. You cannot just say I am not good at it. You have the example of Nadal in front of you. You can be good on any surface if you work at it.

I'd like to see how Andy performs the rest of this year before predicting how he will do in 2014. I guess a lull after Wimbledon was to be expected. His loss in the quarters of the US Open will have hurt and I expect him to perform better in the Asia swing, Paris and the WTF.

His poor performances on the clay are not down to his low expectations or a lack of effort to master the surface. Andy's knee condition is a factor on every surface but clay is and will always be problematic. I'm afraid that is just a fact. Time away from the tour will not fix Andy's knee condition. He just has to try and manage it. That being said it would be nice to see him perform better in 2014.

 

[Riotbeard]

Can we also just acknowledge that maybe Andy is just not that good on clay? Sampras is an all time great, but he was not that good on clay. It is what it is. No finals, less than a handful of wins against top 10 players. Maybe it's just not his surface.

 

[Moxie]

That could be, RB, but he did train in Spain as a teenager, on clay and with Spaniards, so he has a good pedigree on the stuff, which you couldn't say about Sampras and a lot of the US Champions who were ABC (all-but-clay) winners. Iona's talking about a congenital knee defect he has...split patella or some such. In any case, he was clearly right to skip RG this year, rest the back and focus on Wimbledon.

 

[Iona16]

Can we also just acknowledge that maybe Andy is just not that good on clay? Sampras is an all time great, but he was not that good on clay. It is what it is. No finals, less than a handful of wins against top 10 players. Maybe it's just not his surface.

The last time I checked Sampras didn't have a chronic knee condition. Andy does and playing on clay aggravates the condition more than other surfaces. As I said that is just a fact. Perhaps he would perform just as badly without the condition but we can't know that for sure.

I have a terrible fear of water and I put it down to the fact that I can't swim. Perhaps I would be just as fearful if I could swim but I'll never know.

 

[Iona16]

That could be, RB, but he did train in Spain as a teenager, on clay and with Spaniards, so he has a good pedigree on the stuff, which you couldn't say about Sampras and a lot of the US Champions who were ABC (all-but-clay) winners. Iona's talking about a congenital knee defect he has...split patella or some such. In any case, he was clearly right to skip RG this year, rest the back and focus on Wimbledon.

At what age do most Spanish players start playing on clay? Andy started playing tennis at age 3 and he never played on a clay court until he moved to Barcelona at 15. He was there for less than 2 years. In all honesty I wouldn't class that as him having a 'good pedigree' on the surface. It was also during his time in Spain that his knee condition was diagnosed. A condition that he was unaware of until he started playing on a clay court.

 

[Riotbeard]

I am not trying to attack Andy (at least unfairly). In general I like the guy (not in love with his game), but he has been tour long enough, and doesn't have the results. If it is the fault of his knee (which I would guess it is, cause Iona definitely knows more than me about Andy), then that still means for physical reasons or whatever he has not been a good clay player overall, and outside of a change some sort that's the way it is. Even if its a physical problem, I think the point that he isn't good on clay (even if he theoretically good be) is a fair one. Compare his results to other players out side the top four, and Andy simply doesn't measure up.

 

[Riotbeard]

That could be, RB, but he did train in Spain as a teenager, on clay and with Spaniards, so he has a good pedigree on the stuff, which you couldn't say about Sampras and a lot of the US Champions who were ABC (all-but-clay) winners. Iona's talking about a congenital knee defect he has...split patella or some such. In any case, he was clearly right to skip RG this year, rest the back and focus on Wimbledon.

3 Americans in Sampras's generation won the French Open. I think the truth is, he wasn't that good on it.

 

[Iona16]

I am not trying to attack Andy (at least unfairly). In general I like the guy (not in love with his game), but he has been tour long enough, and doesn't have the results. If it is the fault of his knee (which I would guess it is, cause Iona definitely knows more than me about Andy), then that still means for physical reasons or whatever he has not been a good clay player overall, and outside of a change some sort that's the way it is. Even if its a physical problem, I think the point that he isn't good on clay (even if he theoretically good be) is a fair one. Compare his results to other players out side the top four, and Andy simply doesn't measure up.

I didn't think you were attacking Andy - fairly or unfairly. For a player of his ranking and his ability his clay performances are poor. No doubt about it. I do think that because Andy hasn't missed tournaments because of the knee and there is no strapping etc that some tennis fans - not specifically any poster on this forum - do ignore the fact that he has a knee condition.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't think Andy had serious physical issues due to which he missed FO 2013.
Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13. The real
back issue was that there was a monkey there that he needed to get out
(Wimbledon win). In fact, his Mom said Wimbledon is Andy's priority well before
Andy even bothered to announce his withdrawal from FO.

So, the upshot is that he will for sure play FO 2014 (and lose before
semifinals).

 

[Iona16]

I don't think Andy had serious physical issues due to which he missed FO 2013.
Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13. The real
back issue was that there was a monkey there that he needed to get out
(Wimbledon win). In fact, his Mom said Wimbledon is Andy's priority well before
Andy even bothered to announce his withdrawal from FO.

So, the upshot is that he will for sure play FO 2014 (and lose before
semifinals).

Who is everybody? You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it true. Andy retired when playing Granollers in Rome. Only the second time he has retired from a match in his entire career. He then returned to London to see various specialists for his back. After medical advice he withdrew from the French Open. I very much doubt it was a decision he took lightly. What was the point of him traveling to Paris and competing in a tournament he wasn't fit enough to play in? He stayed in London and worked on his recovery. Playing in Paris could have jeopardised his hopes of winning Wimbledon. His mum was correct in her comments.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't think Andy had serious physical issues due to which he missed FO 2013.
Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13. The real
back issue was that there was a monkey there that he needed to get out
(Wimbledon win). In fact, his Mom said Wimbledon is Andy's priority well before
Andy even bothered to announce his withdrawal from FO.

So, the upshot is that he will for sure play FO 2014 (and lose before
semifinals).

Who is everybody? You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it true. Andy retired when playing Granollers in Rome. Only the second time he has retired from a match in his entire career. He then returned to London to see various specialists for his back. After medical advice he withdrew from the French Open. I very much doubt it was a decision he took lightly. What was the point of him traveling to Paris and competing in a tournament he wasn't fit enough to play in? He stayed in London and worked on his recovery. Playing in Paris could have jeopardised his hopes of winning Wimbledon. His mum was correct in her comments.

My point is that it was a decision that he took (meaning he could have played if he
choose to). Of course, it was a wise decision and His mum was correct in advising him
to do so. It is well known that he indeed retired in the match against Granollers and
he indeed have a back problem at that time. My contention was that it was not severe
enough for him to not play in French Open. There is an element of cost/benefit analysis
involved in his decision. Why unnecessarily play in FO (where you anyway feel your
chances are less) and hurt your back further thus jeopardizing your Wimbledon chances?

I am not criticizing Murray for missing FO'13. On the contrary, I am praising him
for a well calculated prudent decision made by knowledge of his strengths and weaknesses.

However, you are making it as though he did not really have a choice and he could
not have participated in FO 2013 even if he wanted to. I don't think any rational
person would agree with that.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think Andy had serious physical issues due to which he missed FO 2013.
Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13. The real
back issue was that there was a monkey there that he needed to get out
(Wimbledon win). In fact, his Mom said Wimbledon is Andy's priority well before
Andy even bothered to announce his withdrawal from FO.

So, the upshot is that he will for sure play FO 2014 (and lose before
semifinals).

Who is everybody? You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it true. Andy retired when playing Granollers in Rome. Only the second time he has retired from a match in his entire career. He then returned to London to see various specialists for his back. After medical advice he withdrew from the French Open. I very much doubt it was a decision he took lightly. What was the point of him traveling to Paris and competing in a tournament he wasn't fit enough to play in? He stayed in London and worked on his recovery. Playing in Paris could have jeopardised his hopes of winning Wimbledon. His mum was correct in her comments.

My point is that it was a decision that he took (meaning he could have played if he
choose to). Of course, it was a wise decision and His mum was correct in advising him
to do so. It is well known that he indeed retired in the match against Granollers and
he indeed have a back problem at that time. My contention was that it was not severe
enough for him to not play in French Open. There is an element of cost/benefit analysis
involved in his decision. Why unnecessarily play in FO (where you anyway feel your
chances are less) and hurt your back further thus jeopardizing your Wimbledon chances?

I am not criticizing Murray for missing FO'13. On the contrary, I am praising him
for a well calculated prudent decision made by knowledge of his strengths and weaknesses.

However, you are making it as though he did not really have a choice and he could
not have participated in FO 2013 even if he wanted to. I don't think any rational
person would agree with that.

But I don't even see how it matters, whether he 'could' have played, or not, if everyone agrees that he made the right decision NOT to play. I do think they have to tell the tournament and the governing body that they can't. But what athletes can and can't do, vs what they should and shouldn't do is a grey area, is it not? You say that Murray deciding to rest and rehab the back and save himself for Wimbledon was the right decision. So what does it matter if he could - technically - have shown up for RG, risked the back, had poor results, and then lost Wimbledon, because of that poor judgement? People would be skewering him. (See any number of active threads here or in the past on Nadal's scheduling, vis-a-vis his knees.)

The Murray camp made the right decision. So?

 

[Iona16]

I don't think Andy had serious physical issues due to which he missed FO 2013.
Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13. The real
back issue was that there was a monkey there that he needed to get out
(Wimbledon win). In fact, his Mom said Wimbledon is Andy's priority well before
Andy even bothered to announce his withdrawal from FO.

So, the upshot is that he will for sure play FO 2014 (and lose before
semifinals).

Who is everybody? You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it true. Andy retired when playing Granollers in Rome. Only the second time he has retired from a match in his entire career. He then returned to London to see various specialists for his back. After medical advice he withdrew from the French Open. I very much doubt it was a decision he took lightly. What was the point of him traveling to Paris and competing in a tournament he wasn't fit enough to play in? He stayed in London and worked on his recovery. Playing in Paris could have jeopardised his hopes of winning Wimbledon. His mum was correct in her comments.

My point is that it was a decision that he took (meaning he could have played if he choose to). Of course, it was a wise decision and His mum was correct in advising him to do so. It is well known that he indeed retired in the match against Granollers and he indeed have a back problem at that time. My contention was that it was not severe enough for him to not play in French Open. There is an element of cost/benefit analysis involved in his decision. Why unnecessarily play in FO (where you anyway feel your chances are less) and hurt your back further thus jeopardizing your Wimbledon chances?

I am not criticizing Murray for missing FO'13. On the contrary, I am praising him for a well calculated prudent decision made by knowledge of his strengths and weaknesses.

However, you are making it as though he did not really have a choice and he could not have participated in FO 2013 even if he wanted to. I don't think any rational person would agree with that.

Yes, no doubt he could have traveled to Paris and played but he was advised not to and he took that advice. I'm sure his mother had some input but the upshot is that he listened to medical advice. At no point have I said or suggested that he wasn't physically able to travel and participate in the tournament. He obviously decided it wasn't worth the risk. No player wants to miss a slam and as I said I doubt it was a decision he took lightly. Skipping the French Open didn't come with a guarantee that he would win Wimbledon. You said, "Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13.". That is what I disagreed with.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't think Andy had serious physical issues due to which he missed FO 2013.
Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13. The real
back issue was that there was a monkey there that he needed to get out
(Wimbledon win). In fact, his Mom said Wimbledon is Andy's priority well before
Andy even bothered to announce his withdrawal from FO.

So, the upshot is that he will for sure play FO 2014 (and lose before
semifinals).

Who is everybody? You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it true. Andy retired when playing Granollers in Rome. Only the second time he has retired from a match in his entire career. He then returned to London to see various specialists for his back. After medical advice he withdrew from the French Open. I very much doubt it was a decision he took lightly. What was the point of him traveling to Paris and competing in a tournament he wasn't fit enough to play in? He stayed in London and worked on his recovery. Playing in Paris could have jeopardised his hopes of winning Wimbledon. His mum was correct in her comments.

My point is that it was a decision that he took (meaning he could have played if he
choose to). Of course, it was a wise decision and His mum was correct in advising him
to do so. It is well known that he indeed retired in the match against Granollers and
he indeed have a back problem at that time. My contention was that it was not severe
enough for him to not play in French Open. There is an element of cost/benefit analysis
involved in his decision. Why unnecessarily play in FO (where you anyway feel your
chances are less) and hurt your back further thus jeopardizing your Wimbledon chances?

I am not criticizing Murray for missing FO'13. On the contrary, I am praising him
for a well calculated prudent decision made by knowledge of his strengths and weaknesses.

However, you are making it as though he did not really have a choice and he could
not have participated in FO 2013 even if he wanted to. I don't think any rational
person would agree with that.

But I don't even see how it matters, whether he 'could' have played, or not, if everyone agrees that he made the right decision NOT to play. I do think they have to tell the tournament and the governing body that they can't. But what athletes can and can't do, vs what they should and shouldn't do is a grey area, is it not? You say that Murray deciding to rest and rehab the back and save himself for Wimbledon was the right decision. So what does it matter if he could - technically - have shown up for RG, risked the back, had poor results, and then lost Wimbledon, because of that poor judgement? People would be skewering him. (See any number of active threads here or in the past on Nadal's scheduling, vis-a-vis his knees.)

The Murray camp made the right decision. So?

It is a question of calling a spade a spade.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think Andy had serious physical issues due to which he missed FO 2013.
Everybody believes, the back issue was just a lame excuse to miss FO'13. The real
back issue was that there was a monkey there that he needed to get out
(Wimbledon win). In fact, his Mom said Wimbledon is Andy's priority well before
Andy even bothered to announce his withdrawal from FO.

So, the upshot is that he will for sure play FO 2014 (and lose before
semifinals).

Who is everybody? You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it true. Andy retired when playing Granollers in Rome. Only the second time he has retired from a match in his entire career. He then returned to London to see various specialists for his back. After medical advice he withdrew from the French Open. I very much doubt it was a decision he took lightly. What was the point of him traveling to Paris and competing in a tournament he wasn't fit enough to play in? He stayed in London and worked on his recovery. Playing in Paris could have jeopardised his hopes of winning Wimbledon. His mum was correct in her comments.

My point is that it was a decision that he took (meaning he could have played if he
choose to). Of course, it was a wise decision and His mum was correct in advising him
to do so. It is well known that he indeed retired in the match against Granollers and
he indeed have a back problem at that time. My contention was that it was not severe
enough for him to not play in French Open. There is an element of cost/benefit analysis
involved in his decision. Why unnecessarily play in FO (where you anyway feel your
chances are less) and hurt your back further thus jeopardizing your Wimbledon chances?

I am not criticizing Murray for missing FO'13. On the contrary, I am praising him
for a well calculated prudent decision made by knowledge of his strengths and weaknesses.

However, you are making it as though he did not really have a choice and he could
not have participated in FO 2013 even if he wanted to. I don't think any rational
person would agree with that.

But I don't even see how it matters, whether he 'could' have played, or not, if everyone agrees that he made the right decision NOT to play. I do think they have to tell the tournament and the governing body that they can't. But what athletes can and can't do, vs what they should and shouldn't do is a grey area, is it not? You say that Murray deciding to rest and rehab the back and save himself for Wimbledon was the right decision. So what does it matter if he could - technically - have shown up for RG, risked the back, had poor results, and then lost Wimbledon, because of that poor judgement? People would be skewering him. (See any number of active threads here or in the past on Nadal's scheduling, vis-a-vis his knees.)

The Murray camp made the right decision. So?

It is a question of calling a spade a spade.

I have no idea what you mean by that.