Andy Murray's Clay Court Prospects

[Riotbeard]

I was reading Lendl's comments on Murray's back, and Lendl's statements regarding Andy's good prospects for the clay season (see here: http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/03/lendl-murray-should-find-success-clay/50801/#.Uxcq716V8dA), and I wanted to pose the question, has Andy Murray underperformed on clay in the past or is game ill-suited to the surface, thus making Andy at his core a mediocre clay-court player?

To go into a bit more detail, I remember a thread on here or tennisdigital, ranking the best clay courters, and Andy's name kept being placed right up there behind novak, roger, and rafa. At the time, I strenuously argued against Murray being even in the top 10 current clay players based on his lack of results on the surface. In thinking about this further, I think outside of his athleticism, Murray's game is ill-suited to clay. His groundstrokes are too flat, and really don't seem to penetrate the surface even compared to a second tier player but great clay courter like Almagro. I am not a great analyst of the game, but I think this is pretty obvious, yet every year people blame Andy's mediocrity on a lack of comfort on the surface (which I think is unfair to Murray).

I am curious to see what others think. Mind you this is not a dig at Andy (who's personality I like), some play-styles don't work on every surface, but are still great players (Sampras on clay is pretty obvious).

 

[Front242]

Well, he's made the RG semis before so who knows. We'll find out pretty soon Tbh, I'm more interested in what Sergi Bruguera can do to help Gasquet on clay, which is probably where Gasquet has already had some of his best wins, including against Murray And looking forward to seeing how Stan Wawrinka does too. Going back to Murray, now that his back pain is gone maybe he'll do better this year. He said it used hurt his back playing on clay and with that hopefully not an issue anymore he can move more freely and hopefully have better results.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Andy on clay has always been puzzling for me, because I cannot look at a part of his game and say " This sucks for clay" He is a great mover. Sure, clay moving is a different ballgame, but he is smart enough to adjust. He is a pro. He is an amazing returner and on clay, where service winners are even harder to come by, that is a great advantage. He has a great backhand, and a very good backhand slice. His forehand is not my favorite shot on any surface and that might be one reason he cannot dictate as much on clay. He is a patient and a strategic player, which are all good qualities for clay...

I don't know. He SHOULD be better on clay in my opinion.

 

[Front242]

^ Andy's forehand is definitely not as aesthetically pleasing as Gulbis' Imagine trying to teach that!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Whomever taught that forehand to Gulbis should be banned from coaching. It hurts my retina...

 

[Front242]

^ :lolz:

 

[Front242]

Thing is though, much like Del Potro's FH you've no idea where he's going to hit it so it can be hard to play against him and reading where he's going when lining that monstrosity (albeit effective) up.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Whomever taught that forehand to Gulbis should be banned from coaching. It hurts my retina...

Amazingly, this crazy forehand with the arm twirling is an IMPROVEMENT over the previous one...sigh...

it is always going to be his weaker wing.. he has to manage it.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I was reading Lendl's comments on Murray's back, and Lendl's statements regarding Andy's good prospects for the clay season (see here: http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/03/lendl-murray-should-find-success-clay/50801/#.Uxcq716V8dA), and I wanted to pose the question, has Andy Murray underperformed on clay in the past or is game ill-suited to the surface, thus making Andy at his core a mediocre clay-court player?

To go into a bit more detail, I remember a thread on here or tennisdigital, ranking the best clay courters, and Andy's name kept being placed right up there behind novak, roger, and rafa. At the time, I strenuously argued against Murray being even in the top 10 current clay players based on his lack of results on the surface. In thinking about this further, I think outside of his athleticism, Murray's game is ill-suited to clay. His groundstrokes are too flat, and really don't seem to penetrate the surface even compared to a second tier player but great clay courter like Almagro. I am not a great analyst of the game, but I think this is pretty obvious, yet every year people blame Andy's mediocrity on a lack of comfort on the surface (which I think is unfair to Murray).

I am curious to see what others think. Mind you this is not a dig at Andy (who's personality I like), some play-styles don't work on every surface, but are still great players (Sampras on clay is pretty obvious).

I agree on one thing, Murray will never have his best results on clay.

I disagree COMPLETELY that is strokes are too flat. Having sat courtside both his davis cup matches on red clay I can tell you there is SIGNIFICANT rotation and arc on his shots. He his with plenty of spin when in a neutral rally. On hard courts, where the ball is more in his strike zone he does hit flatter, but not totally flat.

The BIGGEST reason he will have problems dominating on clay is the forehand. He simply cannot consistently hit down the line. He is predictable with his cross court hook. He has some technical flaws in it that preclude have the penetration that Rafa, Fed, and Joker, Berdych, and Wawrinka have.

 

[tented]

Andy on clay has always been puzzling for me, because I cannot look at a part of his game and say " This sucks for clay" He is a great mover. Sure, clay moving is a different ballgame, but he is smart enough to adjust. He is a pro. He is an amazing returner and on clay, where service winners are even harder to come by, that is a great advantage. He has a great backhand, and a very good backhand slice. His forehand is not my favorite shot on any surface and that might be one reason he cannot dictate as much on clay. He is a patient and a strategic player, which are all good qualities for clay...

I don't know. He SHOULD be better on clay in my opinion.

And he trained for a while (a few years?) at the Sánchez-Casal Academy in Barcelona, with Emilio Sánchez as his coach, which makes the whole clay-court enigma even more interesting and bizarre.

 

[Haelfix]

Murray is a counter puncher at heart, and clay has never been great for counterpunchers. Whether it's Hewitt or Simon, they have the movement and high percentage play but they tend to drown on these courts.

Partially it's a testament to the fact that a lot of weapons they have are neutralized somewhat. You don't get to see Murray's net game, slice and his flat serve obviously loses some mph. Meanwhile his best shot, the bh is quite flat and doesn't penetrate as much. His fh also doesn't generate much pace, even though it's slight more effective on this surface than hards.

He still is formidable, it's just clear that he loses something in translation, unlike say Rafa where literally everything he does is amplified by the surface.

 

[Front242]

Great analysis, Haelfix. Yeah, clay in particular is the one place Nadal's huge RPMs on the forehand make his game so much more deadly.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Murray is a counter puncher at heart, and clay has never been great for counterpunchers. Whether it's Hewitt or Simon, they have the movement and high percentage play but they tend to drown on these courts.

Partially it's a testament to the fact that a lot of weapons they have are neutralized somewhat. You don't get to see Murray's net game, slice and his flat serve obviously loses some mph. Meanwhile his best shot, the bh is quite flat and doesn't penetrate as much. His fh also doesn't generate much pace, even though it's slight more effective on this surface than hards.

He still is formidable, it's just clear that he loses something in translation, unlike say Rafa where literally everything he does is amplified by the surface.

Clay has never been great for counter punchers????:huh::huh::huh::huh:

I REALLY have to wrap my head around that one.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

IMHO, Andy's lack of results on clay is due to his physique and clay is the most
taxing surface physically. I don't think the main reason is that his game or shots is not
suited for clay. Folks should not forget that only a few years ago, Andy bulked up and
gained strength (remember the wimbledon in which he was showing off his biceps ).

I tend to agree with Lendl that Andy does not have intrinsic issues with clay.

However, admittedly clay is his worst surface based on past results.

 

[Front242]

Are you saying he's too bulky (hardly!) for clay or not bulky enough? I'm lost 'cos a fella who's pretty good on clay used to be much bigger and even now when smaller he's still winning RG every year. Hint: he used to look like a pirate in clay season. So does that really make even the slightest bit of difference?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Are you saying he's too bulky (hardly!) for clay or not bulky enough? I'm lost 'cos a fella who's pretty good on clay used to be much bigger and even now when smaller he's still winning RG every year. Hint: he used to look like a pirate in clay season. So does that really make even the slightest bit of difference?

I would have been totally lost without your hint.

I am saying the later one (not bulky enough).

What I really mean is not so much the physical size, but the stamina. Andy did not
have the stamina to play long time on clay against good players. But, of late
he has developed some stamina and we need to see when it starts paying off.

I don't think his bad results on clay can be attributed to the notion that
"his game does not suit clay".

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

murray can do some serious damage on clay..now that he is fully fit, look out. and lendl can help murray's mentality and stuff as I hear he was fairly handy on clay himself way back when.

andy pushed 2011 djokovic all the way in one epic sf (rome?), and had his fun at the French open a couple of times, in 2012 is back was already impeding him and he had one eye on the grass court season, 2013 was hopeless for the same iffy back / save body for wimby reasons.

2014 >>>>>>>> ok, let us see what happens.


.

 

[Front242]

Are you saying he's too bulky (hardly!) for clay or not bulky enough? I'm lost 'cos a fella who's pretty good on clay used to be much bigger and even now when smaller he's still winning RG every year. Hint: he used to look like a pirate in clay season. So does that really make even the slightest bit of difference?

I would have been totally lost without your hint.

I am saying the later one (not bulky enough).

What I really mean is not so much the physical size, but the stamina. Andy did not
have the stamina to play long time on clay against good players. But, of late
he has developed some stamina and we need to see when it starts paying off.

I don't think his bad results on clay can be attributed to the notion that
"his game does not suit clay".

His stamina has definitely improved over the years but I can't say he's ever been too small for clay. I can't really say there are many massive tennis players out there right now, especially if we're talking guys who post their best results on clay. Technique wins over strength. Federer was easily the 2nd best clay courter after Nadal before his decline and he's hardly a bulky/strong guy. It's clearly technique that makes you hit balls hard. David "Marty McFly" Goffin even hits the ball hard and he's about as strong as Radwanska!

 

[Rose]

Gee I had completely forgotten about that SF at RG. Excuse me people I think I'm losing my mind! I "lost" the Forum, I forgot my pass word, and I would have sworn Andy in spite of that training down in Spain had never done anything on clay! :cover I'm getting more and more embarrassed here :blush:

 

[Haelfix]

Clay has never been great for counter punchers????:huh::huh::huh::huh:

I REALLY have to wrap my head around that one.

You'd have to go back a very long way to find a counterpuncher who won much on clay. Off the top of my head Wilander is probably the last great one, and that was before the power era really took off.