"The Andy Murray Problem"

[Kirijax]

Wow, Peter Bodo of ESPN is really fed up with Murray's antics on the court.

Here are just some of his comments.

If you’ve ever been a spectator at a sanctioned junior tournament or even a high-level rec event, you’ve seen similar behavior. The screaming. The self-flagellation. The monologues, quad thumping and acid comments directed at everyone and no one in particular. Can you say “freak-out”?

Maybe I would see this differently if Murray had drawn energy and courage from his outbursts and gone on to win that final instead of losing 12 of the final 13 games -- a meltdown that happened to coincide with his most flagrant loss of self-control.

Maybe I would see this differently if Murray had gone into the news conference after Djokovic knocked him out and admitted he lost control, instead of accusing Djokovic of sandbagging.

...the bottom line is that Murray made a hash of his most recent Grand Slam opportunity. An awful, embarrassing mess.

...all that was left for his boosters to cling to was his loyalty to Mauresmo -- a fealty that will be rigorously tested if Murray, who’s back up to No. 4 in the rankings, can’t make greater inroads against an aging Federer, an increasingly banged-up Nadal or the player who is his natural-born rival, Djokovic.

Murray’s comments did serve to take attention away from his lack of self-control during the final. John P. McEnroe’s reputation as the only elite player who managed to play better after going ballistic remains safe for now.

The cold truth is that Murray screwed up in a big way.

The cold truth is that Murray screwed up in a big way.

Ouch. All those good vibes that Murray was getting at the Australian Open are pretty much gone now I guess. Back to square one.

Article

 

[brokenshoelace]

To tell you the truth I'm fed up with reading Peter Bodo articles. It's too much of a sensationalist view and the narrative that Murray lost because of his "outburst" is unsubstantiated. I mean, before the match, everyone was saying Djokovic was simply a better player/baseliner on this sort of surface, and he'll dictate and win. Then...that materializes, and we're looking for explanations? I don't get it.

 

[auto-pilot]

If Lendl didn't want to travel then Murray should have offered him a part-time role and lots of money, because I think it would have been worth it (albeit in hindsight).

 

[El Dude]

I find Murray mildly irritating, but I don't really mind his antics - I mean, wasn't Bodo around 30-40 years ago? Players seem pretty mild these days comparatively. The tour can use some spice.

As for Andy, I think there's a lot of unfair expectation on him because of how good he has been and his breakthrough in 2012-13 with Slam wins. If you look at Andy's record, he's clearly better than anyone else other than the Big Three - the third greatest in a generation that includes two of the very greatest players ever. He's in that nebulous middle ground with players like Kuerten and Courier - an almost-great player who just doesn't make the all-time great list, perhaps largely because he's been overshadowed by some of the truly all-time greatest players - not unlike Vilas was to Connors and Borg. A year or two ago it seemed like he was going to change that and go on a run in his late 20s, perhaps echoing Lendl's late career dominance. But it is looking more and more like that won't happen. I think at this point Andy MIGHT win another Slam or two, but gone are the days that it looks like he could join the elite 6+ Slam club.

But my point is that if you strip away those lofty expectations, Andy is still having a truly excellent career. There's only a dozen or so players in the Open Era who have had better careers. But for whatever reason, people seem to judge Andy more for what he's not than for what he is.

 

[Billie]

I don't have anything against Andy, I don't mind his antics on the tennis court but I've always felt that these hurt him more than anybody else. Frankly if he is playing Nole and I see Andy starting to swear and mumble to himself like he does often, I pretty much can sense that Nole's win is certain.

I have also thought that the role of Lendl was just a bit over rated. Yes he made an impact on Andy but not as much as some give him credit. People just forget the circumstances which that USO 2012 final was played under and that at the end Nole had cramps in the 5th set (after playing on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday) and just couldn't run anymore. No wonder that Andy hoped the same happened in Australia this year and was probably disappointed that it wasn't the case at the end. Wimbledon final 2013, Nole also didn't have anything left to fight with (even though he tried and was breaks up in each set). But even now people will give Murray better chances at Wimbledon, based on that win and some sort of unrealistic advantage that Murray has over Nole.

I am not saying that Andy didn't deserve to win these two matches, of course he did, but at the time some Murray fans were so high and thought that Andy would rule the tennis world from then on. I am sorry if I offend some Murray fans, but he is not in the same league as Federer, Nadal and Nole. Just not as complete player as these 3, tennis wise, physically and especially mentally. That's just the way it is.

As for Bodo, his articles just make me laugh most times. We shouldn't take his opinions as some sort of ultimate authority on tennis.

 

[britbox]

I'm a bit of mixed bag with Murray. I didn't like him much in his early years and some of those antics still persist today - the obscenities levelled at the box, the clutching of body parts etc... pretty much blaming everything on anything outside of his own decisions on-court.

But I kind of warmed to him a little in the respect that I actually like his off-court persona. He's brutally honest and has a dry sense of humour. He's not stage managed in that department. He's also been at the brunt of the sharp end of the British press (a bunch of b**tards when it comes to building them up and knocking them down).

I was glad he won Wimbledon and got that monkey off his back.

In general, I think the role of the coach can often be blown out proportion, but with regard to Lendl and Murray, I think the reverse is true. I think Lendl had a massive impact on Murray's self-belief and helping him across the line.

Murray has got all the shots in the book, but is second serve is a real liability at the highest level, his forehand can break down under duress and he lacks the "who dares wins" mentality fostered by his peers (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). I thought Lendl helped over the hump - I don't see Mauresmo doing the same. Maybe, I'm being unfair but I'd guess she's a nodding dog in the Murray camp - a far cry from Lendl.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

murray is a mental turd. he needs to hoover his head and banish those turds.

since lendl left murray's let his head be infested with the mental turdery that hurt him before lendl arrived.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Wow, Peter Bodo of ESPN is really fed up with Murray's antics on the court.

Here are just some of his comments.

If you’ve ever been a spectator at a sanctioned junior tournament or even a high-level rec event, you’ve seen similar behavior. The screaming. The self-flagellation. The monologues, quad thumping and acid comments directed at everyone and no one in particular. Can you say “freak-out”?

Maybe I would see this differently if Murray had drawn energy and courage from his outbursts and gone on to win that final instead of losing 12 of the final 13 games -- a meltdown that happened to coincide with his most flagrant loss of self-control.

Maybe I would see this differently if Murray had gone into the news conference after Djokovic knocked him out and admitted he lost control, instead of accusing Djokovic of sandbagging.

...the bottom line is that Murray made a hash of his most recent Grand Slam opportunity. An awful, embarrassing mess.

...all that was left for his boosters to cling to was his loyalty to Mauresmo -- a fealty that will be rigorously tested if Murray, who’s back up to No. 4 in the rankings, can’t make greater inroads against an aging Federer, an increasingly banged-up Nadal or the player who is his natural-born rival, Djokovic.

Murray’s comments did serve to take attention away from his lack of self-control during the final. John P. McEnroe’s reputation as the only elite player who managed to play better after going ballistic remains safe for now.

The cold truth is that Murray screwed up in a big way.

The cold truth is that Murray screwed up in a big way.

Ouch. All those good vibes that Murray was getting at the Australian Open are pretty much gone now I guess. Back to square one.

Article

Spot on. I have been saying since day one he is the weakest mentally of the big four, and that his on court demeanour has absolutely cost multiple slams and loads of tournaments.

This beyond a debate at this point. Murray has two opponents when he plays, the guy at the other side of the net, and himself.

On top of all that, it makes him extremely unlikable.

I posted about this topic last year and was given abuse. I stand vindicated.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

murray is a mental turd. he needs to hoover his head and banish those turds.

since lendl left murray's let his head be infested with the mental turdery that hurt him before lendl arrived.

He needs mental toilet paper.

 

[Great Hands]

Hi, I've been a lurker for a while, but this latest onslaught of Murray-bashing in the media made me want to say something. This is going to be a long rant, but, hey, I'm annoyed. Here goes:

Do these idiot tennis journalists, and the idiots who jump on the bandwagon, actually listen to the press conferences?

It was the JOURNALISTS who brought up the issue of Djokovic's behaviour, multiple times, not Murray, suggesting Djokovic had done it on purpose and obviously trying to stir up a story by getting Murray to agree with this. Murray thus had to respond to their questions, and each time he avoided the debate, just saying 'he didn't know' or 'I have no idea'. Then somehow this turns into 'Murray accuses Djokovic of sandbagging' when it actually was 'journalists try to get Murray to accuse Djokovic of sandbagging and he pointedly does not'.

Murray said he got distracted by Djokovic's physical problems – i.e. he took full responsibility - from his press conference just after the match – 'I let that distract me' he said, 'that's what I'm most disappointed about'. He offered no excuses: 'I've played enough matches to be able to handle that situation better' - i.e. he was blaming HIMSELF!
Murray also did NOT say this was why he lost, he said he was outplayed in 4th set, he praised Djokovic for playing really well.

Bodo says: 'Maybe I would see this differently if Murray had gone into the news conference after Djokovic knocked him out and admitted he lost control, instead of accusing Djokovic of sandbagging.'

But Murray DID admit he lost control, and he DID NOT accuse Djokovic of sandbagging – so Bodo's comments are 100% factually inaccurate.

But then we should never let what's, you know, actually true, get in the way of a good story, right?!

I also agree with Broken Shoelace's point above, which is what always annoys me with the Murray bashing. People go on and on about how he's nowhere near as good as Fed, Rafa and Novak, which he isn't. He's a great player, they are all-time great players.
And then when he loses to them, it's somehow seen as some terrible failure on his part.
I mean, you can't have it both ways. As Broken Shoelace says, I don't get it.

I recorded the final because I was working, and watched it expecting to see a Murray meltdown, given the bashing Murray had got, certainly in this country (the u.k.). What I saw was Murray staying with Djokovic until 4-3 in the 3rd set – when the match was well into it's 4th hour I believe – and then running out of steam both physically and mentally. I mean, he's playing one of the all-time greats, and the greatest australian open player of the open era. He managed to stay with him for over 3 hours, but couldn't sustain the mental and physical intensity required any longer. I'd say that's pretty good going considering Djokovic is mentally stronger, physcially stronger, has a better forehand, a better backhand (marginally), and better second serve.

Also, the whole Murray being a 'mental turd' thing is garbage. Murray is not as mentally strong as Djokovic, Rafa or Fed, but again, they're all-time greats. But I'd say he's the mentally toughest out there after those 3. He produces his best on big points very often, rarely loses matches he should win, has come back from being behind successfully many times in his career. There are mental turds out there – Fognini, Monfils, Berdych when he plays the big boys, to name but 3. But you don't become a multiple major champion, reach 8 grand slam finals, and win nine masters events without being able to play the big points well.

The fact that, despite being a less good player than the Big 3, which murray himself has readily admitted countless times, he's actually managed to beat them 24 times, including beating all of them multiple times over best of 3 and best of 5, tells you how well he has done. That's why the media (as well as wanting to hype up a match), big up murray's chances against those guys, because of all the players out there, he's the one who actually has beaten them more than any other player. But they've still beaten him far more often, because they're better. And yet, when murray loses to them – the more likely scenario – he is castigated. It's ridiculous.

The last 6 YEARS at the AO, murray has only lost to Djokovic – the greatest AO player of the open era - or Fed – arguably the greatest player ever, certainly top 3. All 6 times.

Every time murray has been in a grand slam final, he's been playing an all-time great who's better than him. It's not that surprising that he's 2-6.

Here's are 2 interesting stats I'll finish with: in the last 13 years and 53 slams, only 4 players have won multiple majors – the big 3 and murray.
In the last 6 years and 25 slams, only 4 players have even made multiple slam FINALS! - the big 3 and murray.
After murray, who has made 8, the next players down from him have been in 1 slam final at most! I mean, just 1!

Maybe Andy should get some credit for being the only player to be able to challenge the big 3 at all.

 

[Billie]

Nice post Great Hands. Andy is a great player, his only "fault" is playing at the same time with Roger, Rafa and Nole. As you nicely point out, there is nobody else who has better results than Andy after the other 3. People underestimate how tough and exhausting the tour has been for the last 4-5 years. It is not easy to maintain high level 10-11 months in a season. Andy has been as professional as anybody else on tour. I think he is a nice person as well. Nobody likes to lose and some say or do things they might regret later on, but they are all human and are allowed mistakes. That doesn't mean we have to punish them for that forever. Journos have to write about something, if it is a bit controversial, more people will read it.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I have to agree with Broken's comments regarding Pete Bodo,who to me has become a Drama King Journalist in order to get hit's on his articles..................

The main problem for Murray in my opinion,is he dosen't at times 'play the big points well' in comparison say to Novak,Rafa and Federer.Yes he did lose focus and concentration in the final at the AO against Novak,he admitted that in his press conference later,he was up a break as well,just can't afford to do that,maybe a lesson learnt hopefully.

 

[Great Hands]

Nice post Great Hands. Andy is a great player, his only "fault" is playing at the same time with Roger, Rafa and Nole. As you nicely point out, there is nobody else who has better results than Andy after the other 3. People underestimate how tough and exhausting the tour has been for the last 4-5 years. It is not easy to maintain high level 10-11 months in a season. Andy has been as professional as anybody else on tour. I think he is a nice person as well. Nobody likes to lose and some say or do things they might regret later on, but they are all human and are allowed mistakes. That doesn't mean we have to punish them for that forever. Journos have to write about something, if it is a bit controversial, more people will read it.

Thank you Billie! I agree with you entirely!

 

[brokenshoelace]

To tell you the truth I'm fed up with reading Peter Bodo articles. It's too much of a sensationalist view and the narrative that Murray lost because of his "outburst" is unsubstantiated. I mean, before the match, everyone was saying Djokovic was simply a better player/baseliner on thus sort of surface, and he'll dictate and win. Then...that exactly happens, and we're looking for explanations? I don't get it.

Agree with you on Bodo... after writing for 40 plus years and a gazillion articles, I guess the need to "stretch" things (just to keep his own interest), comes naturally.

Novak should have won on that court. But the the media (at least the English speaking), has this way of getting behind Murray. They cover things in such a way that even Novak's fans get a little concerned that maybe they're just not seeing how great Murray is and how average Novak was playing.

Then it comes to the match and Murray (in my opinion) is still a mental turd without Lendl. Novak plays his game and wins.

To be honest, there's nothing you pointed it out above that I can flat out disagree with. All of this is true, and I agree with you (and britbox) that the split from Lendl (not sure it was Murray's call. I don't suspect it was) was a blow for Andy. There was an immediate Lendl effect that was present from the moment he took over (the 2012 AO semi with Novak is great evidence) in terms of Murray taking control of his own destiny on the court. This has been lacking since Lendl left and I do think Murray might be stuck where he was pre-Lendl (reaching finals, but not getting over the hump. Although the lack of prime Fedals will help). As you know, I'm someone who believes people put way too much stock in coaches, but Lendl is/was a different case. There was an almost tangible tactical and psychological effect on Murray's game.

But, back to the article, while Murray is guilty of negative body language, I never understood the vitriol it seems to trigger. I never found it anything too over the top to be bothersome. I do think he finds it a little harder to "shake things off" and move on mid-match (be it from losing an important point, a break of serve, losing a set, etc...), and yes, he's mentally not in the same category of the other 3. But he's also not quite in that category as a tennis player, and ultimately, that's what the majority of their matches boil down to.

 

[El Dude]

If Andy had been born 10 years before in 1977 he probably would have six or seven Slams, dominating the weak era of the late 90s and early 00s. The best players born between 1972 and 1980 are probably Patrick Rafter, Gustavo Kuerten, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, and Marat Safin - those are also the only players with multiple Slams. Book-ending those years was Pete Sampras, born in 1971, and Roger Federer, born in 1981. I think Andy would have cleaned up during that era and been the best player. It is a notoriously weak decade with no true greats born in that nine-year span; to find something similar you have to go back to birth years 1939 to 1951, book-ended by Rod Laver (1938) and Jimmy Connors (1952) - although even then you have players like Arthur Ashe, John Newcombe, Jan Kodes, Ilie Nastase, and Stan Smith. I've been wondering if the weakness of the 1972-80 birth years has something to do with the decline of American tennis, the last truly great American players being born in 1970 (Agassi) and 1971 (Sampras).

Of course Andy isn't alone in being a player that would have probably had a better career if he had played at a different time. As I said above, Guillermo Vilas comes most readily to mind - he was born the same years as Connors and four years before Bjorn Borg. Vilas was probably even the best player in 1977 but had the year-end stolen away from him; he won 2 Slams and 16 titles overall (!), the most of the Open Era, but still was #2 behind Jimmy Connors, who didn't win any Slams and won 8 titles. Talk about being robbed! But I digress.

Vitas Gerulaitis, Michael Chang, and poor Andy Roddick who was 0-8 against Roger Federer at Slams also come to mind. In the WTA I'm thinking of Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, who lost four Slams in two years to Steffi Graf, or even Maria Sharapova. How many more Slams would Maria have if Serena wasn't around? Actually, in a way Maria is to Serena what Andy is to Novak - a similar player, but just not as good.

In the end we can never know. Maybe Murray is as good as he is partially because he was always trying to catch up with the Big Three. His case isn't so clear. Or we can wonder how many more Slams Federer would have won if a certain Spaniard had chosen a different career path, but then we have to wonder if Rafa's presence actually strengthened Roger - kept him from being complacent. On the other hand, I think someone like Roddick certainly would have won at least a few more Slams if he hadn't played alongside Federer. Again, we can't know - but it is fun thinking about.

 

[Great Hands]

Spot on. I have been saying since day one he is the weakest mentally of the big four, and that his on court demeanour has absolutely cost multiple slams and loads of tournaments.

I strongly disagree that Murray's on court demeanour has cost him multiple slams. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have cost him multiple slams.

I think people see Murray admonish himself or whatever, see him lose, and then think: 'He admonished himself, and that's why he lost', but this is rarely the case.

Let's just look at the games of Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray for a minute, technically. Murray has by far the weakest forehand, from a technical perspective. This is hugely important, as the forehand is the main weapon used to dictate during matches. Murray also has by far the weakest second serve. Again, this is hugely important, as it can often be the difference between who wins or loses a match at elite level. Murray is an amazing physical specimin, but Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are even more amazing physically. Whenever Murray plays them, he is fighting an uphill battle physically and technically.

I'm not saying that Murray hasn't had mental issues, especially pre-Lendl, but that's if you're comparing him to all-time greats. The funny thing is he often gets annoyed with himself during matches, but if he wins the match everyone forgets and the journalists say he was calm, when he wasn't! Then when he loses a match, suddenly it's because he was getting annoyed with himself. But isn't it funny how these supposed mental meltdowns tend to happen when he's playing a player who is better than him? Maybe he lost because, you know, they're bettter players than he is.
When Murray is playing players he is better than, does he appear to be a mental weakling? On the contrary, look overall at Murray's matches against anyone other than the big 3 and he has been amazingly mentally strong.

Murray did have an issue with not being able to reset mentally - I remember that WD SF in 2011 against Nadal where Murray was leading, he missed a big shot, and then his game went downhill. But the thing is, Nadal, being the better player, would very likely have won that match anyway. And in this year's AO final, where, as I say, I expected something similar, based upon comments in the media, I didn't see this at all. Murray got distracted briefly, but this didn't cost him the match, he was essentially just outplayed towards the end. He looked physically and mentally spent.

I do think that murray has, at times, not been aggressive enough in his matches against the big 3. But again, I doubt that him doing so would have affected the final outcome because, as I say, they are better players than him. I think people would agree that Djokovic was below par in the 2 slam finals in which murray beat him. It was this, combined with murray playing well on, and being more aggressive on, big points, that won him those matches. But the fact that Djokovic had to be sub-par for murray to win tells you that EVEN WHEN MURRAY PLAYS WELL, and does not have the supposed mental problems that people accuse him of, he STILL needs 'help' from his big 3 opponent for him to win, because they are, simply, better. Thus it is not murray's mentality that loses him these matches, but the superior quality of opponent.

I am not saying murray did not deserve to win his two majors. On the contrary, I am saying he would have already won more majors in a less strong era, and people might not be wittering on so much about his supposed 'mental turdness'.

I mean, which majors exactly has Murray lost due to his 'on court demeanour'? His first grand slam final, when he had come off a 2-day match against one GOAT-contender, Nadal, only to have to play ANOTHER GOAT-contender in the final, Fed, who was not only fresher but who had won the tournament the last 4 years, was vastly more experienced, and who was simply a better player?

Was he meant to win his other slam finals against arguably the greatest ever, Fed? Or was it the ones in 2011 where he lost to Nadal in the SFs, when even if he'd won he would have then had to play ANOTHER all-time great, Djokovic, in the final? Was he supposed to win, in your eyes, when he played the greatest clay court player of all time on clay in his 2 FO SFs against him? Or when he played the greatest grass court player of all time on grass in the WD final? Or when he played the greatest AO player of the open era in 3 AO finals?

Honestly, I think you're being unbelievably harsh on Andy.

 

[Great Hands]

As regards "Ivandy" (my version of "Fedberg"!): Lendl made big improvements to Andy's game, finally getting him to be more consistently aggressive, and helping him to play big matches better, helping him to reset better, as well as a number of other technical and tactical improvements, including his 1st and 2nd serves and forehand, certain more aggressive set plays etc.

However, I'm not convinced Murray is back where he was pre-Lendl. At this year's AO he was far more consistently aggressive then in his pre-Lendl days, and it's worth noting that Murray's AO final against Novak in 2013, when Murray had been with Lendl for over a year, was amazingly similar to this years'. Two incredibly long, grinding, first 2 sets, which both went to tie-breaks, which they shared 1 apiece. Mid-way throught the 3rd set, and somewhere in the 4th hour of attritional tennis, Murray's level dipped, until Djokovic pulled away and won the latter end of the 3rd set and the 4th set extremely comfortably. I mean, the two matches are almost identical from this perspective. So I don't think that the 'Murray would have played the 2015 AO final better under Lendl than Mauresmo' argument really has a lot of evidence to back it up.

Similarly, last year Andy was actually playing much more aggressively than pre-Lendl too, he just was nowhere near on the same level physically as before (unsurprisingly, since he didn't even start training at 100% until later in the year, and you obviously need a few training blocks at 100% to get back to where you were before.)

Andy is also now a multiple grand slam champion, and fully fit, for the first time in his career. So I think we just have to see how he goes over the next year or 2. It's too early to pronounce Mauresmo a failure. I'm not saying she's as good a coach for Andy as Lendl, or that she's the right coach, just that the jury is out.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Spot on. I have been saying since day one he is the weakest mentally of the big four, and that his on court demeanour has absolutely cost multiple slams and loads of tournaments.

I strongly disagree that Murray's on court demeanour has cost him multiple slams. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have cost him multiple slams.

I think people see Murray admonish himself or whatever, see him lose, and then think: 'He admonished himself, and that's why he lost', but this is rarely the case.

Let's just look at the games of Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray for a minute, technically. Murray has by far the weakest forehand, from a technical perspective. This is hugely important, as the forehand is the main weapon used to dictate during matches. Murray also has by far the weakest second serve. Again, this is hugely important, as it can often be the difference between who wins or loses a match at elite level. Murray is an amazing physical specimin, but Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are even more amazing physically. Whenever Murray plays them, he is fighting an uphill battle physically and technically.

I'm not saying that Murray hasn't had mental issues, especially pre-Lendl, but that's if you're comparing him to all-time greats. The funny thing is he often gets annoyed with himself during matches, but if he wins the match everyone forgets and the journalists say he was calm, when he wasn't! Then when he loses a match, suddenly it's because he was getting annoyed with himself. But isn't it funny how these supposed mental meltdowns tend to happen when he's playing a player who is better than him? Maybe he lost because, you know, they're bettter players than he is.
When Murray is playing players he is better than, does he appear to be a mental weakling? On the contrary, look overall at Murray's matches against anyone other than the big 3 and he has been amazingly mentally strong.

Murray did have an issue with not being able to reset mentally - I remember that WD SF in 2011 against Nadal where Murray was leading, he missed a big shot, and then his game went downhill. But the thing is, Nadal, being the better player, would very likely have won that match anyway. And in this year's AO final, where, as I say, I expected something similar, based upon comments in the media, I didn't see this at all. Murray got distracted briefly, but this didn't cost him the match, he was essentially just outplayed towards the end. He looked physically and mentally spent.

I do think that murray has, at times, not been aggressive enough in his matches against the big 3. But again, I doubt that him doing so would have affected the final outcome because, as I say, they are better players than him. I think people would agree that Djokovic was below par in the 2 slam finals in which murray beat him. It was this, combined with murray playing well on, and being more aggressive on, big points, that won him those matches. But the fact that Djokovic had to be sub-par for murray to win tells you that EVEN WHEN MURRAY PLAYS WELL, and does not have the supposed mental problems that people accuse him of, he STILL needs 'help' from his big 3 opponent for him to win, because they are, simply, better. Thus it is not murray's mentality that loses him these matches, but the superior quality of opponent.

I am not saying murray did not deserve to win his two majors. On the contrary, I am saying he would have already won more majors in a less strong era, and people might not be wittering on so much about his supposed 'mental turdness'.

I mean, which majors exactly has Murray lost due to his 'on court demeanour'? His first grand slam final, when he had come off a 2-day match against one GOAT-contender, Nadal, only to have to play ANOTHER GOAT-contender in the final, Fed, who was not only fresher but who had won the tournament the last 4 years, was vastly more experienced, and who was simply a better player?

Was he meant to win his other slam finals against arguably the greatest ever, Fed? Or was it the ones in 2011 where he lost to Nadal in the SFs, when even if he'd won he would have then had to play ANOTHER all-time great, Djokovic, in the final? Was he supposed to win, in your eyes, when he played the greatest clay court player of all time on clay in his 2 FO SFs against him? Or when he played the greatest grass court player of all time on grass in the WD final? Or when he played the greatest AO player of the open era in 3 AO finals?

Honestly, I think you're being unbelievably harsh on Andy.

"I strongly disagree that Murray's on court demeanour has cost him multiple slams. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have cost him multiple slams."

Sorry, this has no corelation to the facts. He is the only one that has collapsed mentally and burned up mental energy with his negative antics on dozens of occasions. There WERE NO mental meltdowns from Joker, Federer, or Nadal to speak of.

He is the only one to win a slam and so meekly fizzle out the next year.

Harsh? Probably being too kind.

He is not known as "Miserable Murray" for nothing in the UK.

He has a lot of problems. The revolving cast of coaches, contracts that don't get renewed..what is he on..his 3rd or 4th clothing sponsorship?

Smell the coffee.

 

[El Dude]

Luxilon Borg and Great Hands, it sounds like you are both emphasizing two different aspects of Murray that aren't mutually exclusive. GH is saying that he loses to the Big Three because they're simply better, while LB says its because of mental meltdowns. Isn't it both? I mean, LB are you saying that Murray is not inferior to the Big Three? You seem to imply that he's equally talented but doesn't have the same mental edge. And GH, isn't mentality part of talent? So isn't part of the reason he's not as good as the Big Three because he lacks their mental fortitude?

In other words, I think you guys are a lot closer than your disagreement implies.

 

[Great Hands]

Spot on. I have been saying since day one he is the weakest mentally of the big four, and that his on court demeanour has absolutely cost multiple slams and loads of tournaments.

I strongly disagree that Murray's on court demeanour has cost him multiple slams. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have cost him multiple slams.

I think people see Murray admonish himself or whatever, see him lose, and then think: 'He admonished himself, and that's why he lost', but this is rarely the case.

Let's just look at the games of Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray for a minute, technically. Murray has by far the weakest forehand, from a technical perspective. This is hugely important, as the forehand is the main weapon used to dictate during matches. Murray also has by far the weakest second serve. Again, this is hugely important, as it can often be the difference between who wins or loses a match at elite level. Murray is an amazing physical specimin, but Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are even more amazing physically. Whenever Murray plays them, he is fighting an uphill battle physically and technically.

I'm not saying that Murray hasn't had mental issues, especially pre-Lendl, but that's if you're comparing him to all-time greats. The funny thing is he often gets annoyed with himself during matches, but if he wins the match everyone forgets and the journalists say he was calm, when he wasn't! Then when he loses a match, suddenly it's because he was getting annoyed with himself. But isn't it funny how these supposed mental meltdowns tend to happen when he's playing a player who is better than him? Maybe he lost because, you know, they're bettter players than he is.
When Murray is playing players he is better than, does he appear to be a mental weakling? On the contrary, look overall at Murray's matches against anyone other than the big 3 and he has been amazingly mentally strong.

Murray did have an issue with not being able to reset mentally - I remember that WD SF in 2011 against Nadal where Murray was leading, he missed a big shot, and then his game went downhill. But the thing is, Nadal, being the better player, would very likely have won that match anyway. And in this year's AO final, where, as I say, I expected something similar, based upon comments in the media, I didn't see this at all. Murray got distracted briefly, but this didn't cost him the match, he was essentially just outplayed towards the end. He looked physically and mentally spent.

I do think that murray has, at times, not been aggressive enough in his matches against the big 3. But again, I doubt that him doing so would have affected the final outcome because, as I say, they are better players than him. I think people would agree that Djokovic was below par in the 2 slam finals in which murray beat him. It was this, combined with murray playing well on, and being more aggressive on, big points, that won him those matches. But the fact that Djokovic had to be sub-par for murray to win tells you that EVEN WHEN MURRAY PLAYS WELL, and does not have the supposed mental problems that people accuse him of, he STILL needs 'help' from his big 3 opponent for him to win, because they are, simply, better. Thus it is not murray's mentality that loses him these matches, but the superior quality of opponent.

I am not saying murray did not deserve to win his two majors. On the contrary, I am saying he would have already won more majors in a less strong era, and people might not be wittering on so much about his supposed 'mental turdness'.

I mean, which majors exactly has Murray lost due to his 'on court demeanour'? His first grand slam final, when he had come off a 2-day match against one GOAT-contender, Nadal, only to have to play ANOTHER GOAT-contender in the final, Fed, who was not only fresher but who had won the tournament the last 4 years, was vastly more experienced, and who was simply a better player?

Was he meant to win his other slam finals against arguably the greatest ever, Fed? Or was it the ones in 2011 where he lost to Nadal in the SFs, when even if he'd won he would have then had to play ANOTHER all-time great, Djokovic, in the final? Was he supposed to win, in your eyes, when he played the greatest clay court player of all time on clay in his 2 FO SFs against him? Or when he played the greatest grass court player of all time on grass in the WD final? Or when he played the greatest AO player of the open era in 3 AO finals?

Honestly, I think you're being unbelievably harsh on Andy.

"I strongly disagree that Murray's on court demeanour has cost him multiple slams. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have cost him multiple slams."

Sorry, this has no corelation to the facts. He is the only one that has collapsed mentally and burned up mental energy with his negative antics on dozens of occasions. There WERE NO mental meltdowns from Joker, Federer, or Nadal to speak of.

He is the only one to win a slam and so meekly fizzle out the next year.

Harsh? Probably being too kind.

He is not known as "Miserable Murray" for nothing in the UK.

He has a lot of problems. The revolving cast of coaches, contracts that don't get renewed..what is he on..his 3rd or 4th clothing sponsorship?

Smell the coffee.

I asked you to give me one example of when Murray's 'mental antics', as you put it, have lost him slams. You have not done so. You have just talked vaguely about 'dozens of occasions'. This is exactly the lazy criticism of Andy I am talking about.

As I say, I am not saying Andy hasn't had mental issues, but just that I don't think they have cost him slams. Playing in an era where there are three players who are simply better than him has been the problem.

It's funny, because in a way you are too harsh on Andy, but it is because you are too complimentary. You assume that if Andy didn't have his (overrated) mental issues that he would have beaten Nadal, Djokovic and Fed more often, ignoring the fact that they are technically and physically superior to him. You are complimenting him by innacurately placing him in the same tier of greatness as them, and then knocking him when he doesn't live up to your innacurate expectations.

"He is the only one to win a slam and so meekly fizzle out the next year."

This is complete nonsense. The year after Murray won his first slam, he won his first tournament of the year, reached the final of the AO, won the Miami Masters, won Queens Club, and won Wimbledon. How is that 'meekly fizzling out'?
Or did you mean after he won Wimbledon? In which case, at the next slam Murray was in so much pain with his back he was having to spend hours and hours in physio just to be able to get on the court. He still reached the QFs, losing to Wawrinka. Hardly a disgrace. Then he, you know, had BACK SURGERY! And was unable to train properly, and was playing through pain, till at least the Autumn of 2014. So again, describing this as 'fizzling out' is ridiculous.

"He is not known as "Miserable Murray" for nothing in the UK."

I agree that Murray can have a miserable demeanour on court. I am not arguing with you here. Although it stems from a perfectionism that is part of what makes him as good as he is, the intensity that he brings to the court - and I will say again, what I disagree with is not that he can be miserable on court, but that this has cost him slams.
He is also known as "Miserable Murray" in the media because ignorant extroverts - and people in the media are often extroverts - confuse a shy, introverted personality with being miserable. I know because I am an introverted person, and although I am polite and actually very content inwardly, people sometimes think I am miserable because I am not smiling and jumping around with glee all the time. Anyone who has ever come into contact with Murray personally describes him as polite, with a good sense of humour. He is clearly a decent human being - he does a lot of charity work - and has a nice line in self-deprecating humour. One of my favourites of his was when a journalist asked: What's the most boring thing about the ATP tour?
Murray: My voice?

"Revolving cast of coaches"? Changing coaches every few years is hardly abnormal in professional tennis.

You are the one who needs to smell the coffee. I see Murrray for the level of player he is. You are seeing him as better than he is, and then criticising him for not being as good as players he is simply not as good as. I agree that Murray could improve further mentally, and if he does, this could help him to win more if Fed and Nadal are not at their best and Djok has an off day. But I cannot think of a single slam so far where his mental issues have been the only thing standing between him and the Championship. Three superior players have been standing in his way, surely you must see that.