Muzza!

[Great Hands]

I've seen this brought up before but I really wonder sometimes if Andy Murray could work with Mats Wilander. Wilander really worked on his backhand slice and net game as he tired to get to number No.1 He finally achieved it with one of the most impressive Grand Slam seasons ever in the Open era. Murray could really benefit from Wilander's game plan and way to approach a match. And he did have a winning record against Murray's former coach in Grand Slam finals.

I agree that Mats could be a great choice. However, this possibility came up after Murray split from Lendl, and Wilander ruled himself out because he said he couldn't commit the time.

I remember a t.v. pundit - I think it was Rusedski - saying that Mauresmo was not good and that Murray should work with Wilander. It didn't seem to occur to him that Wilander would have some say in this. It was like he thought Murray could just go to a 'former grand slam champion supermarket' and just pick whichever player he wanted off the shelves!

 

[Moxie]

Murray also needs to hire a sports psychologist.

Murray has mentioned several times recently that he is currently working with one.

By the way, today, Murray was for most of the match calm and composed - not much shouting or ranting, but he lost badly. He can also often shout and be irritable, and play great and win. I maintain that his mental issues are overrated. I think they are a little bit of a red herring. When he loses, it's usually because he is simply outplayed.

GH, I agree with you that the psychological aspect with Murray is a red herring. His moaning and complaining and grabbing at body parts is more of a tic for him than a detriment. He can be crabby and win, whereas a lot of other players create their own destruction with negative attitudes. He doesn't so much lose to the lower tiered players as the Big 3 above him, which is then about being out-played.

Forget the psychology...if he'd work on his 2nd serve and his aggression, he'd do better. If he can get back to form and confidence since the surgery, I think there is another Wimbledon in his future, at the very least.

 

[nehmeth]

Tend to disagree. I think it is a between-the-ears issue. Time will tell.

 

[Moxie]

Tend to disagree. I think it is a between-the-ears issue. Time will tell.

Maybe so. Do you think that, without the surgery set-back, Murray was ready to take the same step-up in confidence and game that Novak did? To me, I think it's still the flaws in his game that keep him from beating the top 3.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Yes, the problem may be primarily with his game; but, why he is not able to improve the
game? After winning Wimbledon, Murray does not seem to have tangible goals set for himself and hence seem to lack motivation to improve his game.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, the problem may be primarily with his game; but, why he is not able to improve the
game? After winning Wimbledon, Murray does not seem to have tangible goals set for himself and hence seem to lack motivation to improve his game.

I absolutely believe that he is motivated and has tangible goals. (Not #1, but more Slams, would be my guess.) Back trouble and surgery derailed him for the last year and a half. I think we have to wait to see how he gets back on track from there. I don't think there is any lack of motivation, or goals, and I'd challenge you to back that up.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Surgery was in 2013 fall. We can give him a pass for some time due to it, but this is a much
longer drought. He needs to win at least one 1000 event this year (forget about GS) to prove
that he is in the mix of contenders (and preferably by beating at least one of the big 3 along
the way).

 

[Moxie]

Surgery was in 2013 fall. We can give him a pass for some time due to it, but this is a much
longer drought. He needs to win at least one 1000 event this year (forget about GS) to prove
that he is in the mix of contenders (and preferably by beating at least one of the big 3 along
the way).

That's probably fair, as a measure. I don't think it's completely fair to say how players should come back from surgery, or how fast. Obviously, look at Juan Martin. But if Murray is to stay in the conversation, he has to find his footing very soon, I agree with that. Otherwise, there will plenty (Nishikori, for example) who would like to have his slot.

 

[nehmeth]

Tend to disagree. I think it is a between-the-ears issue. Time will tell.

Maybe so. Do you think that, without the surgery set-back, Murray was ready to take the same step-up in confidence and game that Novak did? To me, I think it's still the flaws in his game that keep him from beating the top 3.

Andy stated himself that the back surgery had a more significant affect on his game than losing Lendl as his coach. http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/367187.html

Do I take him at his word? He was always on the verge of a breakthrough in the slams and always losing. He hired Lendl to get him over that hurdle. Andy won two slams and Olympic gold, with many of the same shortcomings that he has today.

Murray had two significant traumas during the formative years of his life... the murders at his school and the separation of his parents shortly thereafter. Most of us know how profoundly trauma can affect a child. There is plenty of information out there, but here is one link and it hits the key points. http://www.nctsn.org/trauma-types/complex-trauma/effects-of-complex-trauma

Novak also experienced a different kind of trauma - the bombings every night with the family huddled together in some basement. And while he parents remained a solid loving unit, he as a young boy left for Germany to attend the Pilic tennis academy.

There is nothing empirical to any of this, but let me continue.

Look at Rafa and Roger... their lives growing up were very stable by comparison. Is there a correlation between that and their achievements? Or just that inner confidence that enabled them to reach the levels they have? If there is, we will never know how much or how little. Novak has made inroads, but when he faces those two, he often seems like the outsider still trying to break through. Confidence.

Andy has a lot of ground to cover. I believe that Lendl was a positive force in his life with the strength of character from which he could draw confidence and reach the levels that his talent always told us were there. I don't know that Andy would have attained what he has without Lendl, and I'm not at all sure he will again without someone similar in his corner.

It's just my opinion and everyone else is now free to yell bullsh*t.

 

[Moxie]

While an empathetic soul appreciates what Novak and Andy suffered early in life, I'm not sure it explains who they are as tennis players, or how they fitted into the Fedal dynamic. Roger was sailing along until Rafa came up, and then it was really a couple of years before Djoko and Muzza featured. By the time they did, they had to fit themselves into an existing and potent duopoly. In that, they were just behind the curve. As players, they seem to have very well-formed egos, and senses of their own talents. Of course we are tempted to psychoanalyze players, but I would think it best not to over-sentimentalize the Djokovic and Murray early traumas. Clearly, they are sturdy enough, and I doubt either of them would like to feel defined by those early incidents. I suspect they would both live and die by their tennis, at this point.

 

[nehmeth]

It is only my opinion. The link I included is just an overview, but it does hit some very good points - especially some of the ways trauma affects emotional response to stress later in life. The highest echelons of tennis are all about dealing with stress and finding a way to overcome it and maximize your game.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Surgery was in 2013 fall. We can give him a pass for some time due to it, but this is a much
longer drought. He needs to win at least one 1000 event this year (forget about GS) to prove
that he is in the mix of contenders (and preferably by beating at least one of the big 3 along
the way).

That's probably fair, as a measure. I don't think it's completely fair to say how players should come back from surgery, or how fast. Obviously, look at Juan Martin. But if Murray is to stay in the conversation, he has to find his footing very soon, I agree with that. Otherwise, there will plenty (Nishikori, for example) who would like to have his slot.

We cannot compare the surgery of one player to another player, especially when fundamentally
different body parts are involved. After all JMDP's surgery was on wrist and there is literally no way
you can play tennis without a functioning wrist. I understand that Andy's back surgery was a primarily elective surgery and also is considered fairly minor surgery by the medical professionals. Also, I can dig out quotes from Andy from at least June 2014 if not before where he says he is back to normal at 100% level.

 

[Moxie]

It is only my opinion. The link I included is just an overview, but it does hit some very good points - especially some of the ways trauma affects emotional response to stress later in life. The highest echelons of tennis are all about dealing with stress and finding a way to overcome it and maximize your game.

You said it was only your opinion, which I respect. I'm not sure how to address the links you have to analyses of childhood trauma. I know you're not making an excuse for anyone, so it is interesting, but what do we take from it? At the least, though, I expect you'll be kinder towards Murray.

 

[Moxie]

Surgery was in 2013 fall. We can give him a pass for some time due to it, but this is a much
longer drought. He needs to win at least one 1000 event this year (forget about GS) to prove
that he is in the mix of contenders (and preferably by beating at least one of the big 3 along
the way).

That's probably fair, as a measure. I don't think it's completely fair to say how players should come back from surgery, or how fast. Obviously, look at Juan Martin. But if Murray is to stay in the conversation, he has to find his footing very soon, I agree with that. Otherwise, there will plenty (Nishikori, for example) who would like to have his slot.

We cannot compare the surgery of one player to another player, especially when fundamentally
different body parts are involved. After all JMDP's surgery was on wrist and there is literally no way
you can play tennis without a functioning wrist. I understand that Andy's back surgery was a primarily elective surgery and also is considered fairly minor surgery by the medical professionals. Also, I can dig out quotes from Andy from at least June 2014 if not before where he says he is back to normal at 100% level.

I'd like to see where one can play tennis without a good back, though.

 

[nehmeth]

At the least, though, I expect you'll be kinder towards Murray.

Never.

 

[Moxie]

At the least, though, I expect you'll be kinder towards Murray.

Never.

Well, so much for taking the longer view on their childhood traumas. :lolz:

 

[nehmeth]

At the least, though, I expect you'll be kinder towards Murray.

Never.

Well, so much for taking the longer view on their childhood traumas. :lolz:

:snicker (torpedoed)

 

[Great Hands]

Tend to disagree. I think it is a between-the-ears issue. Time will tell.

I don't discount between-the-ears entirely, I just think it is overstated. For example, as i mnentiedn in ahtoerh thread, murray losing to novak on a slwoer surface is hardly a sign that he is mentally weker than when he was with lendl, bwcause murray never beat novak ona slwoer surface under lednl either.

what about murray's performaces at indian wells under lendl?
2012 - lost in the 2nd round ot GArcia lopez.
2013 - los tin the qfs ot del potro.
2014 (not long before split with lendl annouced) - lst in 4th round to raonic.

so actually, murray has done better at iw under mauresom than he ever did under lendl.

how much of Murray's loss yesterday was between the ears? Murray lost to Novak on a slower surface, and as I mentioned in another thread, when Murraqy was supposedly mentally stronger under Lendl, how many times did he beat novak on slowr surfaces? none, is the answer. in fact

 

[Great Hands]

Surgery was in 2013 fall. We can give him a pass for some time due to it, but this is a much
longer drought. He needs to win at least one 1000 event this year (forget about GS) to prove
that he is in the mix of contenders (and preferably by beating at least one of the big 3 along
the way).

Murray did not start training 100% again until just beore us open 2014. and you're not goiing to get back to where you were pre-surgery after one training sesssion. but murray looks MUCH better physcially this year. i don't think you can use that as reason any more. but i woudl ask: a reason for what? [not beating prime djokovic on a slwoer surdce yersterday? as i mentioned in another thread, murray's NEVEr done that - ever. i'm not sure what people are expceting from him.]

you say he needs to win a masters, and ideally beat the big 3 to do so. murray won 1 masters evetn under lendl. just one! and that was miami 2013, where he didn't havet o pkay any of the big 3 to do so.



what about murray's performaces at indian wells under lendl?
2012 - lost in the 2nd round ot GArcia lopez.
2013 - los tin the qfs ot del potro.
2014 (not long before split with lendl annouced) - lst in 4th round to raonic.

so actually, murray has done better at iw under mauresom than he ever did under lendl.

and going back further:
iw 2011 - lost in 2nd round to young.
iw 2010 - lost in qfs to soderling

this was actually murray's most uscucessful iw since 2009, and his best at any masters evetn since miami 2013. he won that event - but didn't have to beat any of hte big 3 to do so. and that was the ONLY masters evernt he won even when working with lendl.
again, i don't know what poeple expect of him, so me occcasioanl wins over hte big 3 if they're underpefrmaing - espcially likely on fastr surfaces. that's all i excpet, becude that's all he's veer done. he needs the big 3 to underpefrom becaue they're beeter. i'm goinf to end with a quote form el dude form the prviosu murray therad, becaue i think it sums it up pretty well:

 

[Great Hands]

Surgery was in 2013 fall. We can give him a pass for some time due to it, but this is a much
longer drought. He needs to win at least one 1000 event this year (forget about GS) to prove
that he is in the mix of contenders (and preferably by beating at least one of the big 3 along
the way).

Murray did not start training 100% again until just beore us open 2014. and you're not goiing to get back to where you were pre-surgery after one training sesssion. but murray looks much better physcially this year. i don't think you can use that as ecuse any more. but i woudl ask: an excuse for what? [not beating prime djokovic on a slwoer surdce yersterday? as i mentioned in another thread, murray's NEVEr done that - ever. i'm not sure what people are expceting from him.] what is this 'drought' that you speak of, in comparison to murray's level and abillity rhrougth his career, including with lendl?

[you say he needs to win a masters, and ideally beat the big 3 to do so. murray won 1 masters evetn under lendl. just one! and that was miami 2013, where he didn't havet o pkay any of the big 3 to do so.]



what about murray's performaces at indian wells under lendl?
2012 - lost in the 2nd round ot GArcia lopez.
2013 - los tin the qfs ot del potro.
2014 (not long before split with lendl annouced) - lst in 4th round to raonic.

so actually, murray has done better at iw under mauresom than he ever did under lendl. again, what do people expcet from him?

and going back further:
iw 2011 - lost in 2nd round to young.
iw 2010 - lost in qfs to soderling

so this was actually murray's most uscucessful iw since 2009, and his best at any masters evetn since miami 2013. he won that event - but didn't have to beat any of hte big 3 to do so. and that was the ONLY masters evernt he won even when working with lendl.
what sld people expcct from him, given his level and ability thgoughr otu his carrer? in my opnio, wining against non-big 3 plyers , and having occcasioanl wins over hte big 3 if they're underpefrmaing - espcially likely on fastr surfaces. that's all i excpet, becude that's all he's veer done.
he needs the big 3 to underpefrom becaue they're beeter. i'm goinf to end with a quote form el dude form the prviosu murray therad, becaue i think it sums it up pretty well:

It is rather interesting how people continue to speak of Andy Murray as if something is "wrong" with him, as if his performance is a far-cry from his ability. As I see it, his performance perfectly matches his ability level. If you look at his record since he broke through in 2008, he's got the 4th best overall numbers; I'd say that is very accurate for his ability level - that he's been "the best of the rest" after the Big Three.