"The Andy Murray Problem"

[Kirijax]

OK, let's not drive the new guy away after his 1st day of posting!?:snicker

It seems to me that we all agree that Andy is a great player, but lacks a bit in technical and mental aspects. I sometimes feel like I am crazy for not hating or disliking anybody so much. I always root for somebody, very rarely against somebody. I also think that all players try to do the best they can, at the end of the day the results are there for all of us to see, we can't be completely fooled.

Huh? Whose driving who away? Fair and friendly debate.

Yes, it has been fair and friendly. I am not someone who is personally offended if someone has a different opinion to me. Debate is all part of the fun, after all!

Welcome Great Hands! We all love a good friendly debate!

 

[brokenshoelace]

So what is everyone's opinion on what exactly took place after Murray was up a break in the 3rd set?
In the 3rd set did Djokovic merely maintain his level from the first 2 sets, and Murray dropped?
Or did Djokovic lift his level in the 3rd set?
To me it looked like Murray's level dropped, including donating unforced errors, not hitting as deep, and looked dispirited after Djokovic got the break-back.
Whereas in the first 2 sets, Murray kept the ball very deep and therefore didn't allow Djokovic much room to control play or pick-off winners.
Would Murray have performed differently in the 3rd set and maintained his level if Lendl was in his camp?
Maybe.

my guess is that his biggest weakness - his 2nd serve - cost him dearly. It felt like he couldn't buy a point without a decent first serve after a while. This is one of his biggest weaknesses against Roger and Novak. He starts off ok on that side.. usually.. but once those guys get used to it, it puts tremendous pressure on him. He might get away with WTA style serves against lesser players, but you really can't afford to be at such a huge disadvantage against a stone cold killa like Novak

Yeah, but in a way I think this is related to his forehand. It's weird because quality wise, his forehand is miles better than his second serve, so you're right. But, his inability to consistently take control with the forehand makes his second serve even more vulnerable. For instance, Nadal's second serve isn't much better than Murray (the lefty aspect helps but that's about it), but he can still rely on his movement to find a forehand at some point in the rally and work his way in, so the forehand in a way protects the second serve.

Because Murray can't take charge of points with the forehand like the other top guys can, his first serve becomes even more important and he needs it for easy holds. That's kinda why the moment Novak zones in on the return, Murray can't virtually win any point behind his second serve.

 

[Billie]

OK, let's not drive the new guy away after his 1st day of posting!?:snicker

It seems to me that we all agree that Andy is a great player, but lacks a bit in technical and mental aspects. I sometimes feel like I am crazy for not hating or disliking anybody so much. I always root for somebody, very rarely against somebody. I also think that all players try to do the best they can, at the end of the day the results are there for all of us to see, we can't be completely fooled.

Thank you for being very welcoming and friendly, Billie! And don't worry, I haven't been driven away, or been offended or anything. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just stopped posting about this issue because I feel I've said what I have to say, and others have said what they think, and there's no point in repeating ourselves and going round in circles.

Let me add my welcome too.

I love posters who don't take spirited debates personally.

Thanks guys.

Great Hands: we sometimes just love to go around and around the circles (I am guilty of that as well). I am glad you are back and I am looking forward to more of your posts.

LB I hope you didn't think I was addressing you only, I sort of appealed to all of us. I know you never get personal in your tennis debates, I love that about you.

BTW: Ever since I was 7 my whole family have called me "the judge" :laydownlaughing I don't know why!!!!

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Thank you for being very welcoming and friendly, Billie! And don't worry, I haven't been driven away, or been offended or anything. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just stopped posting about this issue because I feel I've said what I have to say, and others have said what they think, and there's no point in repeating ourselves and going round in circles.

Let me add my welcome too.

I love posters who don't take spirited debates personally.

Thanks guys.

Great Hands: we sometimes just love to go around and around the circles (I am guilty of that as well). I am glad you are back and I am looking forward to more of your posts.

LB I hope you didn't think I was addressing you only, I sort of appealed to all of us. I know you never get personal in your tennis debates, I love that about you.

BTW: Ever since I was 7 my whole family have called me "the judge" :laydownlaughing I don't know why!!!!

Haha, no worries. Maybe we will call you Judgr Billie from now on.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

So what is everyone's opinion on what exactly took place after Murray was up a break in the 3rd set?
In the 3rd set did Djokovic merely maintain his level from the first 2 sets, and Murray dropped?
Or did Djokovic lift his level in the 3rd set?
To me it looked like Murray's level dropped, including donating unforced errors, not hitting as deep, and looked dispirited after Djokovic got the break-back.
Whereas in the first 2 sets, Murray kept the ball very deep and therefore didn't allow Djokovic much room to control play or pick-off winners.
Would Murray have performed differently in the 3rd set and maintained his level if Lendl was in his camp?
Maybe.

my guess is that his biggest weakness - his 2nd serve - cost him dearly. It felt like he couldn't buy a point without a decent first serve after a while. This is one of his biggest weaknesses against Roger and Novak. He starts off ok on that side.. usually.. but once those guys get used to it, it puts tremendous pressure on him. He might get away with WTA style serves against lesser players, but you really can't afford to be at such a huge disadvantage against a stone cold killa like Novak

Yeah, but in a way I think this is related to his forehand. It's weird because quality wise, his forehand is miles better than his second serve, so you're right. But, his inability to consistently take control with the forehand makes his second serve even more vulnerable. For instance, Nadal's second serve isn't much better than Murray (the lefty aspect helps but that's about it), but he can still rely on his movement to find a forehand at some point in the rally and work his way in, so the forehand in a way protects the second serve.

Because Murray can't take charge of points with the forehand like the other top guys can, his first serve becomes even more important and he needs it for easy holds. That's kinda why the moment Novak zones in on the return, Murray can't virtually win any point behind his second serve.

Murray has a huge technical flaw in his forehand. He basically can do mostly one thing with it...hook it cross court. He has no go to down the line fear hand to speak of, but of course he can do it once Ina a while...his inside out is also under developed, which to me, is an essential tool for a top ten player.

 

[Federberg]

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.

Of course Lendl should be credited for helping Murray get over the hump. But it's important not to go overboard. I certainly don't want to revise history... he did win fair and square after all, but Novak was shocking in both finals. Would we be going on about Lendl if the real Novak had showed up? I'm not so sure..

Novak "showed up" in the AO 2012 semi and barely squeaked by Murray. Let's not re-write history indeed, especially with one sided hypotheticals.

Novak was not shocking at the 2012 US Open final. This is a complete myth that again, got thrown around here too much and was believed. Murray handled the wind better. When the wind calmed down, Novak was actually outplaying him.

I agree Novak doesn't handle the wind well. That was my point. Whether one calls that shocking or not is a personal choice as far as I'm concerned.

No such excuse at Wimbledon. I suspect Novak was mentally scrambled by the support Andy was getting there. That's always been a problem for Novak. In fact it's something that, to my mind, puts him just a tad below Roger and Rafa. They wouldn't let a hostile crowd stop them. I'll never forget Roger's US Open final against Agassi. Seriously impressive

 

[auto-pilot]

In that US Open, 35-year-old Agassi had played THREE 5-setters before the final.
He was clearly below his best physically in the final.
Actually I remember in the semi-final versus Ginepri which went 5 sets, the commentator described Agassi as being "punch drunk"; and I recall Agassi refusing to run for many balls.
So yeah, Federer overcame the crowd, but his opponent really only had a couple of good sets left in the tank.

 

[DarthFed]

Of course Lendl should be credited for helping Murray get over the hump. But it's important not to go overboard. I certainly don't want to revise history... he did win fair and square after all, but Novak was shocking in both finals. Would we be going on about Lendl if the real Novak had showed up? I'm not so sure..

Novak "showed up" in the AO 2012 semi and barely squeaked by Murray. Let's not re-write history indeed, especially with one sided hypotheticals.

Novak was not shocking at the 2012 US Open final. This is a complete myth that again, got thrown around here too much and was believed. Murray handled the wind better. When the wind calmed down, Novak was actually outplaying him.

I agree Novak doesn't handle the wind well. That was my point. Whether one calls that shocking or not is a personal choice as far as I'm concerned.

No such excuse at Wimbledon. I suspect Novak was mentally scrambled by the support Andy was getting there. That's always been a problem for Novak. In fact it's something that, to my mind, puts him just a tad below Roger and Rafa. They wouldn't let a hostile crowd stop them. I'll never forget Roger's US Open final against Agassi. Seriously impressive

I wasn't surprised by Murray winning either match though I was shocked at how easy the Wimbledon final was. On fast surfaces Murray is a big threat to Novak and on grass he is the favorite IMO. Murray dealt with the wind better than Nole did in the USO final and if you saw the beginning of Djokovic's semi vs. Ferrer it was hardly a surprise. At Wimbledon the biggest difference IMO is their serve. Andy has a huge first serve and the extra free points made up much of the difference. Novak's serve, especially the 2nd serve, is better than Murray's overall, but Andy's fastball makes it more effective on grass at least in the H2H matchup.

 

[DarthFed]

In that US Open, 35-year-old Agassi had played THREE 5-setters before the final.
He was clearly below his best physically in the final.
Actually I remember in the semi-final versus Ginepri which went 5 sets, the commentator described Agassi as being "punch drunk"; and I recall Agassi refusing to run for many balls.
So yeah, Federer overcame the crowd, but his opponent really only had a couple of good sets left in the tank.

Andre was taking a lot of cortisone shots at that point and he knew it was realistically his last chance at another major. Agassi gave it all for 3 sets and got up a break in the 3rd. And we know he was never athletic, the only way he was going to beat Roger was to take it to him from the baseline and he did it pretty well that day. But he was not going to win regardless of how energetic he was. It's no coincidence that Roger's only slight struggles during his run of 5 straight wins came in the US Open final against Americans (Agassi and Roddick).

 

[Great Hands]

Thanks for all the welcomes, everybody!

 

[Great Hands]

my guess is that his biggest weakness - his 2nd serve - cost him dearly. It felt like he couldn't buy a point without a decent first serve after a while. This is one of his biggest weaknesses against Roger and Novak. He starts off ok on that side.. usually.. but once those guys get used to it, it puts tremendous pressure on him. He might get away with WTA style serves against lesser players, but you really can't afford to be at such a huge disadvantage against a stone cold killa like Novak

Yeah, but in a way I think this is related to his forehand. It's weird because quality wise, his forehand is miles better than his second serve, so you're right. But, his inability to consistently take control with the forehand makes his second serve even more vulnerable. For instance, Nadal's second serve isn't much better than Murray (the lefty aspect helps but that's about it), but he can still rely on his movement to find a forehand at some point in the rally and work his way in, so the forehand in a way protects the second serve.

Because Murray can't take charge of points with the forehand like the other top guys can, his first serve becomes even more important and he needs it for easy holds. That's kinda why the moment Novak zones in on the return, Murray can't virtually win any point behind his second serve.

Murray has a huge technical flaw in his forehand. He basically can do mostly one thing with it...hook it cross court. He has no go to down the line fear hand to speak of, but of course he can do it once Ina a while...his inside out is also under developed, which to me, is an essential tool for a top ten player.

Murray can hit down the line with the forehand, he just struggles to do it with any pace. He uses his inside out forehand a lot more than he used to - he can hit it pretty decently (one of his more common aggressive plays these days is to hit a big serve, step into the court, hit the inside out forehand, step forward further, and finish the point with a volley). The main problem for Murray on the forehand side is that it is not a naturally explosive shot unless he is on the run, when he can hit great passing shots at pace. But otherwise, if he tries to really go after it, he is prone to errors - hitting it either long or into the net. Sometimes he connects with it and he can hit a great explosive forehand - it helps if his footwork to the ball is good so he can really set up to tee off on it - but with Murray, he usually needs the hit the forehand with more margin for error - with less pace and more spin - to avoid making too many unforced errors. If he doesn't go after the forehand too much, he can be very consistent with it, and can do a lot of different things with the ball, because of his great hands. But he can't do that 'big forehand = point over' thing that the big 3 can all do, to varying degrees. Murray usually has to contruct the point a bit more, get his oppponent on the run, so that he can create the space to hit forehand winners. This all adds up to a major technical disadvantage in his ability to dictate play against the big boys.

 

[auto-pilot]

I'm interested to see another Murray-Djokovic match at Wimbledon.
Its a good test psychologically for Djokovic because of the crowd being all against him.
Whereas the crowd is probably in his favor at the French Open.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yeah, Murray's main problem with the forehand is he can't change directions consistently and in a manner that catches the opponent off guard (ie with serious pace, as someone noted above).

As far as the Murray-Djokovic finals, this is a very dangerous game we're playing with what ifs, and it's only happening because Murray doesn't have much fan support around here. In other words, if I were to say "I'm not attempting to re-write history here, but would Roger Federer have a French Open title if he played Nadal in the final that year?" it would lead to world war III. With Murray, the question is even more disrespectful because he actually DID play Djokovic and beat him...so we're questioning what would have happened if Djokovic played better?

Djokovic was bad in the Wimbledon final. But I'd still favor Murray on grass against him regardless, mainly because he can make him play bad there. That's one of Murray's skills. Not that i credit him with the extent of Novak's poor performance at Wimbledon.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Yeah, but in a way I think this is related to his forehand. It's weird because quality wise, his forehand is miles better than his second serve, so you're right. But, his inability to consistently take control with the forehand makes his second serve even more vulnerable. For instance, Nadal's second serve isn't much better than Murray (the lefty aspect helps but that's about it), but he can still rely on his movement to find a forehand at some point in the rally and work his way in, so the forehand in a way protects the second serve.

Because Murray can't take charge of points with the forehand like the other top guys can, his first serve becomes even more important and he needs it for easy holds. That's kinda why the moment Novak zones in on the return, Murray can't virtually win any point behind his second serve.

Murray has a huge technical flaw in his forehand. He basically can do mostly one thing with it...hook it cross court. He has no go to down the line fear hand to speak of, but of course he can do it once Ina a while...his inside out is also under developed, which to me, is an essential tool for a top ten player.

Murray can hit down the line with the forehand, he just struggles to do it with any pace. He uses his inside out forehand a lot more than he used to - he can hit it pretty decently (one of his more common aggressive plays these days is to hit a big serve, step into the court, hit the inside out forehand, step forward further, and finish the point with a volley). The main problem for Murray on the forehand side is that it is not a naturally explosive shot unless he is on the run, when he can hit great passing shots at pace. But otherwise, if he tries to really go after it, he is prone to errors - hitting it either long or into the net. Sometimes he connects with it and he can hit a great explosive forehand - it helps if his footwork to the ball is good so he can really set up to tee off on it - but with Murray, he usually needs the hit the forehand with more margin for error - with less pace and more spin - to avoid making too many unforced errors. If he doesn't go after the forehand too much, he can be very consistent with it, and can do a lot of different things with the ball, because of his great hands. But he can't do that 'big forehand = point over' thing that the big 3 can all do, to varying degrees. Murray usually has to contruct the point a bit more, get his oppponent on the run, so that he can create the space to hit forehand winners. This all adds up to a major technical disadvantage in his ability to dictate play against the big boys.

here is the fatal flaw in Muzzer's forehand..note the position of the wrist..and compare it with the others...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Yeah, but in a way I think this is related to his forehand. It's weird because quality wise, his forehand is miles better than his second serve, so you're right. But, his inability to consistently take control with the forehand makes his second serve even more vulnerable. For instance, Nadal's second serve isn't much better than Murray (the lefty aspect helps but that's about it), but he can still rely on his movement to find a forehand at some point in the rally and work his way in, so the forehand in a way protects the second serve.

Because Murray can't take charge of points with the forehand like the other top guys can, his first serve becomes even more important and he needs it for easy holds. That's kinda why the moment Novak zones in on the return, Murray can't virtually win any point behind his second serve.

Murray has a huge technical flaw in his forehand. He basically can do mostly one thing with it...hook it cross court. He has no go to down the line fear hand to speak of, but of course he can do it once Ina a while...his inside out is also under developed, which to me, is an essential tool for a top ten player.

Murray can hit down the line with the forehand, he just struggles to do it with any pace. He uses his inside out forehand a lot more than he used to - he can hit it pretty decently (one of his more common aggressive plays these days is to hit a big serve, step into the court, hit the inside out forehand, step forward further, and finish the point with a volley). The main problem for Murray on the forehand side is that it is not a naturally explosive shot unless he is on the run, when he can hit great passing shots at pace. But otherwise, if he tries to really go after it, he is prone to errors - hitting it either long or into the net. Sometimes he connects with it and he can hit a great explosive forehand - it helps if his footwork to the ball is good so he can really set up to tee off on it - but with Murray, he usually needs the hit the forehand with more margin for error - with less pace and more spin - to avoid making too many unforced errors. If he doesn't go after the forehand too much, he can be very consistent with it, and can do a lot of different things with the ball, because of his great hands. But he can't do that 'big forehand = point over' thing that the big 3 can all do, to varying degrees. Murray usually has to contruct the point a bit more, get his oppponent on the run, so that he can create the space to hit forehand winners. This all adds up to a major technical disadvantage in his ability to dictate play against the big boys.

And and even better example...

 

[Great Hands]

Novak "showed up" in the AO 2012 semi and barely squeaked by Murray. Let's not re-write history indeed, especially with one sided hypotheticals.

Novak was not shocking at the 2012 US Open final. This is a complete myth that again, got thrown around here too much and was believed. Murray handled the wind better. When the wind calmed down, Novak was actually outplaying him.

I agree Novak doesn't handle the wind well. That was my point. Whether one calls that shocking or not is a personal choice as far as I'm concerned.

No such excuse at Wimbledon. I suspect Novak was mentally scrambled by the support Andy was getting there. That's always been a problem for Novak. In fact it's something that, to my mind, puts him just a tad below Roger and Rafa. They wouldn't let a hostile crowd stop them. I'll never forget Roger's US Open final against Agassi. Seriously impressive

I wasn't surprised by Murray winning either match though I was shocked at how easy the Wimbledon final was. On fast surfaces Murray is a big threat to Novak and on grass he is the favorite IMO. Murray dealt with the wind better than Nole did in the USO final and if you saw the beginning of Djokovic's semi vs. Ferrer it was hardly a surprise. At Wimbledon the biggest difference IMO is their serve. Andy has a huge first serve and the extra free points made up much of the difference. Novak's serve, especially the 2nd serve, is better than Murray's overall, but Andy's fastball makes it more effective on grass at least in the H2H matchup.

you'e right, the firsdt serve was aboslutely crucial to andy's wimbldeon win.

check if all these points/how many of them were first serves!

I agree about murray being a biiger threat to novak on faster surfaces and espcially on grass. absolutely. but i'm not sure that he is the favourite to beat novak on grass.

re: the wimbledon final 2013, i guess it was easy in the sense that it was straight sets, but wihout murray's clutch play on big points in that match - murray's play on the big points that day was fantastic - it could easily have been at least 2 sets to 1 to novak after set 3. some big points from that match:

djokovic had THREE break points to level the match at 4-4 in set 1 that murray saved with an ace, and two highly aggressive forehand-volley combos. in set 2 djokovic, as well as being 4-1 up, had TWO break points to serve for set 2, whici murray saved with an ace, and the ohter with aggressive forheands follwed by net play again. in set 3, novak, as well as being 4-2 up, had THREE break points to level after murray had already had 3 championship points and was looking physcially exhausted - if novak had won any of theose 3 points, wld murray have been able to come back, physcially and mentally, or would the match have turned? anyway, andy won those three break pints with a big first serve, a long rally which he won with a forehand winner, and a big serve-inside out forehand - volley cobination.

i.e. the match was VERY hard fought and if murray had not won virtually every big point - he was conststely aggressive on big points in that match - the outcome cld have been very different. [You can see novak getting icnreasinhly frusteted that every time he has a point to comleyely turn the match around, murray keeps being highly aggresive, accurate and successfuil. i guess what i'm saying is that, whilst djokoivc didn't play anywher near his best, he was still very close to being 2-1 up after 3 sets a tleast - so a lot of the credit for the match being a straight sets win has to go to murray, for his amzing clutch play that day.]
what i'm saying is, the idea that murray defeated novak comfortably that day - as the score might suggest - is not really true.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Murray has a huge technical flaw in his forehand. He basically can do mostly one thing with it...hook it cross court. He has no go to down the line fear hand to speak of, but of course he can do it once Ina a while...his inside out is also under developed, which to me, is an essential tool for a top ten player.

Murray can hit down the line with the forehand, he just struggles to do it with any pace. He uses his inside out forehand a lot more than he used to - he can hit it pretty decently (one of his more common aggressive plays these days is to hit a big serve, step into the court, hit the inside out forehand, step forward further, and finish the point with a volley). The main problem for Murray on the forehand side is that it is not a naturally explosive shot unless he is on the run, when he can hit great passing shots at pace. But otherwise, if he tries to really go after it, he is prone to errors - hitting it either long or into the net. Sometimes he connects with it and he can hit a great explosive forehand - it helps if his footwork to the ball is good so he can really set up to tee off on it - but with Murray, he usually needs the hit the forehand with more margin for error - with less pace and more spin - to avoid making too many unforced errors. If he doesn't go after the forehand too much, he can be very consistent with it, and can do a lot of different things with the ball, because of his great hands. But he can't do that 'big forehand = point over' thing that the big 3 can all do, to varying degrees. Murray usually has to contruct the point a bit more, get his oppponent on the run, so that he can create the space to hit forehand winners. This all adds up to a major technical disadvantage in his ability to dictate play against the big boys.

And and even better example...

It is a wonder that none of Murray's former coaches didn't try to correct the technique on his fhand.I have never liked the back swing he has on his fhand either,looks clumsy to me,maybe not the correct word.BTW I know this is off topic,but still on a fhand.Why on earth did Gilbus change the swing on his fhand?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Murray can hit down the line with the forehand, he just struggles to do it with any pace. He uses his inside out forehand a lot more than he used to - he can hit it pretty decently (one of his more common aggressive plays these days is to hit a big serve, step into the court, hit the inside out forehand, step forward further, and finish the point with a volley). The main problem for Murray on the forehand side is that it is not a naturally explosive shot unless he is on the run, when he can hit great passing shots at pace. But otherwise, if he tries to really go after it, he is prone to errors - hitting it either long or into the net. Sometimes he connects with it and he can hit a great explosive forehand - it helps if his footwork to the ball is good so he can really set up to tee off on it - but with Murray, he usually needs the hit the forehand with more margin for error - with less pace and more spin - to avoid making too many unforced errors. If he doesn't go after the forehand too much, he can be very consistent with it, and can do a lot of different things with the ball, because of his great hands. But he can't do that 'big forehand = point over' thing that the big 3 can all do, to varying degrees. Murray usually has to contruct the point a bit more, get his oppponent on the run, so that he can create the space to hit forehand winners. This all adds up to a major technical disadvantage in his ability to dictate play against the big boys.

And and even better example...

It is a wonder that none of Murray's former coaches didn't try to correct the technique on his fhand.I have never liked the back swing he has on his fhand either,looks clumsy to me,maybe not the correct word.BTW I know this is off topic,but still on a fhand.Why on earth did Gilbus change the swing on his fhand?

It is no secret Murray is a stubborn fellow. Also, it is difficult to change a consistent stroke. Usually coaches don't want to mess with a flawed stroke if the player does not often miss it..so turn it into a weapon is a risk.

Murray can hook his forehand crosscourt all day.

Gulbis..Oy Vey!

 

[isabelle]

Andy should hire Sabatini...if she's still able to hit with an injured Delpony, she could do some great things for Andy I guess

 

[Federberg]

Andy should hire Sabatini...if she's still able to hit with an injured Delpony, she could do some great things for Andy I guess

Out of curiousity.. what is your objection to Mauresmo? I would have thought you would be happy to see a French woman in such a high profile role...