Luxilon Borg said:
Great Hands said:
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.
