Andy Murray's Clay Court Prospects

[Riotbeard]

By the way, I do not consider him right behind Rafa, Roger and Nole on clay. There are plenty others ahead of him beside those 3.

I'd be curious who you'd rate ahead of him. While there is a fair raft of mid-range clay specialists out there, there is also a pretty big gulf between the top-tier players and the mid-pack. Most of the best clay players, besides Ferrer, are aging out or are already retired. And Andy has won MS1000s and Slams. Who else do you see between Murray, Rafa, Novak and Roger on clay?

Delpo, ferrer, and monfils just off the top of my head. I would also probably put stan ahead of murray. Good cases can also be made for the likes of almagro and other clay court specialists.

And Robredo for example. He mas many clay court titles including a master. Murray has never been in a clay court final. That is glaring to me on his portfolio. I would put him behind Monaco as well.

Almagro also has 12 clay titles. One where he won the final over soderling, another over nalbandian in 08.

 

[tented]

Also the only top 10 player he has EVER beaten on the surface, was davydenko in 09. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Murray_career_statistics#Wins_over_top_10s_per_season

Now this is surprising. I know clay isn't his best surface, but I would have been willing to bet a large amount he has had more success against top players than this. Thanks, Riotbeard.

 

[herios]

By the way, I do not consider him right behind Rafa, Roger and Nole on clay. There are plenty others ahead of him beside those 3.

I'd be curious who you'd rate ahead of him. While there is a fair raft of mid-range clay specialists out there, there is also a pretty big gulf between the top-tier players and the mid-pack. Most of the best clay players, besides Ferrer, are aging out or are already retired. And Andy has won MS1000s and Slams. Who else do you see between Murray, Rafa, Novak and Roger on clay?

Delpo, ferrer, and monfils just off the top of my head. I would also probably put stan ahead of murray. Good cases can also be made for the likes of almagro and other clay court specialists.

I mentioned Ferrer, and obviously he has pedigree. I've already expressed my reservations about DelPo on clay. Personally, I think people have long overrated him on the surface, and I'd cite stamina and movement as issues, and on both points I'd rate Murray above him. I won't bite on Monfils. If you look at their record on clay, Murray's is slightly better. (.621 v. .612.) And I'd always take Murray in the clutch. I also think Almagro is a fairly weak entry, at this stage of his career. I'd be curious if you'd actually make a case for another clay specialist, rather than just nodding to them in a blanket way. Fognini, maybe, as he's also trending these days.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Stan, as he's always been very good on clay, though I don't know what his results are. And I think he could be the bane of many this year during the clay season, though I wouldn't take him for the win at RG.

I did say Stan...

I think Delpo clearly has better results on clay, same with monfils. (RG Semis each and titles on the surface). Robredo isn't currently better, but would have been closer to his prime.

I am curious to hear why "currently" Robredo isn't better than Murray on clay? Last year Tommy won 2 clay events and reached QF at RG. What did Murray do???

 

[Riotbeard]

I'd be curious who you'd rate ahead of him. While there is a fair raft of mid-range clay specialists out there, there is also a pretty big gulf between the top-tier players and the mid-pack. Most of the best clay players, besides Ferrer, are aging out or are already retired. And Andy has won MS1000s and Slams. Who else do you see between Murray, Rafa, Novak and Roger on clay?

Delpo, ferrer, and monfils just off the top of my head. I would also probably put stan ahead of murray. Good cases can also be made for the likes of almagro and other clay court specialists.

I mentioned Ferrer, and obviously he has pedigree. I've already expressed my reservations about DelPo on clay. Personally, I think people have long overrated him on the surface, and I'd cite stamina and movement as issues, and on both points I'd rate Murray above him. I won't bite on Monfils. If you look at their record on clay, Murray's is slightly better. (.621 v. .612.) And I'd always take Murray in the clutch. I also think Almagro is a fairly weak entry, at this stage of his career. I'd be curious if you'd actually make a case for another clay specialist, rather than just nodding to them in a blanket way. Fognini, maybe, as he's also trending these days.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Stan, as he's always been very good on clay, though I don't know what his results are. And I think he could be the bane of many this year during the clay season, though I wouldn't take him for the win at RG.

I did say Stan...

I think Delpo clearly has better results on clay, same with monfils. (RG Semis each and titles on the surface). Robredo isn't currently better, but would have been closer to his prime.

I am curious to hear why "currently" Robredo isn't better than Murray on clay? Last ywae Tommy won 2 clay events and reached QF at RG. What did Mureray do???

I honestly don't have a good reason for why I said that, I recant. Tommy is better on clay.

 

[tented]

I am curious to hear why "currently" Robredo isn't better than Murray on clay? Last year Tommy won 2 clay events and reached QF at RG. What did Murray do???

Let's not get carried away. Robredo won two 250-level tournaments, without having faced anyone ranked higher than 17 (Wawrinka in Casablanca). If he had been there, Murray could have won those tournaments, too, but he played the Masters and RG, not 250s.

 

[herios]

By the way, I do not consider him right behind Rafa, Roger and Nole on clay. There are plenty others ahead of him beside those 3.

I'd be curious who you'd rate ahead of him. While there is a fair raft of mid-range clay specialists out there, there is also a pretty big gulf between the top-tier players and the mid-pack. Most of the best clay players, besides Ferrer, are aging out or are already retired. And Andy has won MS1000s and Slams. Who else do you see between Murray, Rafa, Novak and Roger on clay?

Delpo, ferrer, and monfils just off the top of my head. I would also probably put stan ahead of murray. Good cases can also be made for the likes of almagro and other clay court specialists.

I mentioned Ferrer, and obviously he has pedigree. I've already expressed my reservations about DelPo on clay. Personally, I think people have long overrated him on the surface, and I'd cite stamina and movement as issues, and on both points I'd rate Murray above him. I won't bite on Monfils. If you look at their record on clay, Murray's is slightly better. (.621 v. .612.) And I'd always take Murray in the clutch. I also think Almagro is a fairly weak entry, at this stage of his career. I'd be curious if you'd actually make a case for another clay specialist, rather than just nodding to them in a blanket way. Fognini, maybe, as he's also trending these days.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Stan, as he's always been very good on clay, though I don't know what his results are. And I think he could be the bane of many this year during the clay season, though I wouldn't take him for the win at RG.

I did say Stan...

I think Delpo clearly has better results on clay, same with monfils. (RG Semis each and titles on the surface). Robredo isn't currently better, but would have been closer to his prime.

I think people make a big deal out of a couple close losses murray did against top clay courters and one rg semi. It's worth noting that in that semi's run andy beat one seeded player, the fifteenth seed Victor Troiki, and it took five sets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_French_Open). Frankly there have been few easier runs to the semi-finals of any grand slam.

You just hit it on the nail. That is exactly what people keep bringing up for both Del Potro and also for Murray for their accomplishments on clay. If Delpo is overrated on clay considering his RG SF run, Murray is even more so.
At least Delpo has titles on clay as well as a master final , Andy zipo.

EDIT: About that 5 set win of Andy's over Troicki,Viktor chocked that one big time. For me that SF run was quite opportunistic.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Ok. We know Andy does not like dirt. Let us not throw more dirt on him.

 

[herios]

I am curious to hear why "currently" Robredo isn't better than Murray on clay? Last year Tommy won 2 clay events and reached QF at RG. What did Murray do???

Let's not get carried away. Robredo won two 250-level tournaments, without having faced anyone ranked higher than 17 (Wawrinka in Casablanca). If he had been there, Murray could have won those tournaments, too, but he played the Masters and RG, not 250s.

I am going to reiterate, Andy has never been in a final on clay Period. You cannot convince me he would have won those events.

Edit: Assumptions will not beat facts.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

does any one know Andy's schedule for this year?

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

does any one know Andy's schedule for this year?

i had a glance a while back, he is playing plenty on clay this year, clay this, clay that...clay clay clayclayclay..

also he has the davis cup away vs Italy on clay..in fact so far in 2014 andy is 100% on clay..2-0.

 

[Riotbeard]

I'd be curious who you'd rate ahead of him. While there is a fair raft of mid-range clay specialists out there, there is also a pretty big gulf between the top-tier players and the mid-pack. Most of the best clay players, besides Ferrer, are aging out or are already retired. And Andy has won MS1000s and Slams. Who else do you see between Murray, Rafa, Novak and Roger on clay?

Delpo, ferrer, and monfils just off the top of my head. I would also probably put stan ahead of murray. Good cases can also be made for the likes of almagro and other clay court specialists.

I mentioned Ferrer, and obviously he has pedigree. I've already expressed my reservations about DelPo on clay. Personally, I think people have long overrated him on the surface, and I'd cite stamina and movement as issues, and on both points I'd rate Murray above him. I won't bite on Monfils. If you look at their record on clay, Murray's is slightly better. (.621 v. .612.) And I'd always take Murray in the clutch. I also think Almagro is a fairly weak entry, at this stage of his career. I'd be curious if you'd actually make a case for another clay specialist, rather than just nodding to them in a blanket way. Fognini, maybe, as he's also trending these days.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Stan, as he's always been very good on clay, though I don't know what his results are. And I think he could be the bane of many this year during the clay season, though I wouldn't take him for the win at RG.

I did say Stan...

I think Delpo clearly has better results on clay, same with monfils. (RG Semis each and titles on the surface). Robredo isn't currently better, but would have been closer to his prime.

I think people make a big deal out of a couple close losses murray did against top clay courters and one rg semi. It's worth noting that in that semi's run andy beat one seeded player, the fifteenth seed Victor Troiki, and it took five sets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_French_Open). Frankly there have been few easier runs to the semi-finals of any grand slam.

You just hit it on the nail. That is exactly what people keep bringing up for both Del Potro and also for Murray for their accomplishments on clay. If Delpo is overrated on clay considering his RG SF run, Murray is even more so.
At least Delpo has titles on clay as well as a master final , Andy zipo.

EDIT: About that 5 set win of Andy's over Troicki,Viktor chocked that one big time. For me that SF run was quite opportunistic.

Delpo also beat tsonga and robredo en route to the semis. Isner has more top 10 clay wins...

 

[Iona16]

I seem to post on this subject every year when the inevitable 'Murray' and 'clay' threads start. I'm just going to post my thread from last year.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=188

At risk of asking a dumb question, if it is a knee problem at the core of murray's lack of success on clay, why would Lendl not be aware of this and think things will turn around for Andy on clay?

Also is it really that bad to discuss why a clearly great player has problems on one surface? Can't we all settle down. There have been threads critical of every player, if I had a nickel for every reference to Nole shirt ripping mentioned...

I've no idea what the core problem is. That would be a question for Andy. I'm merely pointing out that his knee IS a factor. Clay WILL always be problematic for him. That's just a fact. I'm pretty sure Lendl knows about Andy's knee condition. I'm also sure that he will always be positive about Andy's chances on any surface. He's not likely to say Andy will never win the French. I'm afraid Andy's back rather than his knee has been the major problem these past 2 years.

I have no problem with the thread. I was just pointing out that I repeat myself year after year on the same topic. It seemed easier to post my thread from last year.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

At the risk of asking another dumb question (primarily to Iona, but others are
also welcome to chime in), can somebody explain to me why this rare knee issue
of Andy should affect him only on clay and not on other courts.

After all, does not people (just ask Rafa) claim that Clay is softer on Knees
than hard courts.

How come nobody mentions "bipartite patella" when Andy does so well
in hard courts and it gets mentioned only when Andy suck on clay.

 

[Iona16]

I am curious to hear why "currently" Robredo isn't better than Murray on clay? Last year Tommy won 2 clay events and reached QF at RG. What did Murray do???

Let's not get carried away. Robredo won two 250-level tournaments, without having faced anyone ranked higher than 17 (Wawrinka in Casablanca). If he had been there, Murray could have won those tournaments, too, but he played the Masters and RG, not 250s.

I am going to reiterate, Andy has never been in a final on clay Period. You cannot convince me he would have won those events.

Edit: Assumptions will not beat facts.

That is a disappointing stat. No doubt about that BUT do you know how many clay tournaments Andy plays in a year? Monte Carlo, Barcelona (on occasion), Rome, Madrid and RG. That's it. No 250s and only 1 x 500 event - as I said (at times) Barcelona.

If people want to believe that all and sundry can just turn up and beat Andy on clay then I'm not really sure what to say about that. Would I expect Rafa, Novak, Roger and David to beat Andy on clay? Yes. I'd also add Berdych and Wawrinka. That would be it as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Iona16]

At the risk of asking another dumb question (primarily to Iona, but others are
also welcome to chime in), can somebody explain to me why this rare knee issue
of Andy should affect him only on clay and not on other courts.

After all, does not people (just ask Rafa) claim that Clay is softer on Knees
than hard courts.

How come nobody mentions "bipartite patella" when Andy does so well
in hard courts and it gets mentioned only when Andy suck on clay.

It should be fairly obvious that Andy and Rafa have very different knee conditions. If you bothered to read the thread that I posted you will see why clay is more problematic than hard courts and grass. For the record ALL surfaces are bad for his knee. Some are just worse than others.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I seem to post on this subject every year when the inevitable 'Murray' and 'clay' threads start. I'm just going to post my thread from last year.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=188

At risk of asking a dumb question, if it is a knee problem at the core of murray's lack of success on clay, why would Lendl not be aware of this and think things will turn around for Andy on clay?

Also is it really that bad to discuss why a clearly great player has problems on one surface? Can't we all settle down. There have been threads critical of every player, if I had a nickel for every reference to Nole shirt ripping mentioned...

I've no idea what the core problem is. That would be a question for Andy. I'm merely pointing out that his knee IS a factor. Clay WILL always be problematic for him. That's just a fact. I'm pretty sure Lendl knows about Andy's knee condition. I'm also sure that he will always be positive about Andy's chances on any surface. He's not likely to say Andy will never win the French. I'm afraid Andy's back rather than his knee has been the major problem these past 2 years.

I have no problem with the thread. I was just pointing out that I repeat myself year after year on the same topic. It seemed easier to post my thread from last year.

I don't think there is any evidence what so ever that there is a Murray knee problem,

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I am curious to hear why "currently" Robredo isn't better than Murray on clay? Last year Tommy won 2 clay events and reached QF at RG. What did Murray do???

Let's not get carried away. Robredo won two 250-level tournaments, without having faced anyone ranked higher than 17 (Wawrinka in Casablanca). If he had been there, Murray could have won those tournaments, too, but he played the Masters and RG, not 250s.

I am going to reiterate, Andy has never been in a final on clay Period. You cannot convince me he would have won those events.

Edit: Assumptions will not beat facts.

That is a disappointing stat. No doubt about that BUT do you know how many clay tournaments Andy plays in a year? Monte Carlo, Barcelona (on occasion), Rome, Madrid and RG. That's it. No 250s and only 1 x 500 event - as I said (at times) Barcelona.

If people want to believe that all and sundry can just turn up and beat Andy on clay then I'm not really sure what to say about that. Would I expect Rafa, Novak, Roger and David to beat Andy on clay? Yes. I'd also add Berdych and Wawrinka. That would be it as far as I'm concerned.

This reminds me of how disdainful Sampras and Agassi were of the clay season. They even insulted Muster when he became #1 claiming it did not mean much because he did it with clay wins. The irony, since there were times when Sampras went a full calendar year between clay matches.

They would be in a for a rude awakening today with the schedule.

Rafa single handedly saved clay court tennis.

 

[Iona16]

I seem to post on this subject every year when the inevitable 'Murray' and 'clay' threads start. I'm just going to post my thread from last year.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=188

At risk of asking a dumb question, if it is a knee problem at the core of murray's lack of success on clay, why would Lendl not be aware of this and think things will turn around for Andy on clay?

Also is it really that bad to discuss why a clearly great player has problems on one surface? Can't we all settle down. There have been threads critical of every player, if I had a nickel for every reference to Nole shirt ripping mentioned...

I've no idea what the core problem is. That would be a question for Andy. I'm merely pointing out that his knee IS a factor. Clay WILL always be problematic for him. That's just a fact. I'm pretty sure Lendl knows about Andy's knee condition. I'm also sure that he will always be positive about Andy's chances on any surface. He's not likely to say Andy will never win the French. I'm afraid Andy's back rather than his knee has been the major problem these past 2 years.

I have no problem with the thread. I was just pointing out that I repeat myself year after year on the same topic. It seemed easier to post my thread from last year.

I don't think there is any evidence what so ever that there is a Murray knee problem,

Apart from medical evidence.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I seem to post on this subject every year when the inevitable 'Murray' and 'clay' threads start. I'm just going to post my thread from last year.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=188

At risk of asking a dumb question, if it is a knee problem at the core of murray's lack of success on clay, why would Lendl not be aware of this and think things will turn around for Andy on clay?

Also is it really that bad to discuss why a clearly great player has problems on one surface? Can't we all settle down. There have been threads critical of every player, if I had a nickel for every reference to Nole shirt ripping mentioned...

I've no idea what the core problem is. That would be a question for Andy. I'm merely pointing out that his knee IS a factor. Clay WILL always be problematic for him. That's just a fact. I'm pretty sure Lendl knows about Andy's knee condition. I'm also sure that he will always be positive about Andy's chances on any surface. He's not likely to say Andy will never win the French. I'm afraid Andy's back rather than his knee has been the major problem these past 2 years.

I have no problem with the thread. I was just pointing out that I repeat myself year after year on the same topic. It seemed easier to post my thread from last year.

I don't think there is any evidence what so ever that there is a Murray knee problem,

Apart from medical evidence.

Not on the court...not even close. Even in that stupid exo last night he was moving explosively for every ball.

 

[Haelfix]

Nadal does not counterpunch at least 75% of the time at the French? You have to be kidding.

Yea this is going to get into the definition of a counterpuncher, but Rafa definitely plays clay differently than someone like Murray. Particularly as he's gotten older, he plays more of an aggressive control baseline game.

Murray is not going to hit the snot out of every single ground stroke in order to pin the opponent deep and slowly advance to control the court. Instead he plays angles, takes pace off his balls, hits slices, dropshots and varied ground strokes in order ot position the opposing player into a place where the other is forced to overcommit or to hit a shot that he doesn't want to hit.

Sure both players can hit a passing shot and can play defense when needed, but its in how they choose to rally and to construct the point where there is a big difference and that difference has a direct and important impact into how well suited they are to play certain courts.

A good example to see the difference is something like comparing Ferrer to Lleyton Hewitt. Both small guys, with wheels, Hewitt had a better serve, Ferrer has a better forehand, they both play high percentage tennis and have great defense and stamina. Ferrer however is more like Rafa in his point construction (very much more of a grinder style, very control oriented), whereas Hewitt is much more cagey with his shot selection. Even though Lleyton was a much greater player across the board, he never was good on dirt like Ferrer, and its not even close. Thats simply b/c some styles dont survive the translation.