"The Andy Murray Problem"

[auto-pilot]

Well my only objection to Mauresmo is that she isn't Lendl.
Its a hard act to follow.

 

[Federberg]

Well my only objection to Mauresmo is that she isn't Lendl.
Its a hard act to follow.

That means you would object to anyone! Lendl did his job, got him over the hump. He's a seasoned multi-slam winner now with a right to follow whatever path he chooses. I'm not sure she's done anything wrong at all

 

[Great Hands]

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!

Taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk. Lendl acutually said as much when he started coaching Andy. He didn't try to make major technical changes, just made tweaks. On the forehand side, it seemed Lendl was mostly trying to change Andy's atittude on the shot psychologically, make him be more consistently aggressive with it, hit through the ball more consistenly, hit it harder and deeper. It's also about court postioning, in order to get the most out of his forehand. Murray's footwork to the forehand and balance on the shot seemed to improve under Lendl too. But the underlying technique remained the same. Most players on the tour have technical weaknesses in their game, but once a shot is established, it's tricky to start messing with it. To be fair, Andy's forehand is a far better weaker wing than a lot of players' weaker wing. I mean, if we want to talk about tecnical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day. There's a reason even top players have technical weaknesses. If it was that easy to change, then every tennis player would have a perfect technical game, but that's not the case. Murray's all-round game is actually one of the most technically sound out there, it's just not overall as technically great as the big 3.

Luxilon Borg, it seems we actually agree about Murray to a very large extent. The only point we seem to part ways on is the degree to which the mental component has lost Murray matches.

Murray's grumpy demeanour on court doesn't seem to stop him beating the vast majority of players. In fact, many times he shouts at himself and then plays a great shot. In the Wimbledon QF in 2013, when Murray was 2 sets down to Verdasco, he gave himself a stern talking to, shouting at himself etc. It seemed this was what he needed, because he then won the next 3 sets and teh match, But if he had lost that match, everyone would have criticised his shouty monologues. because he won, they were'nt mentioned. There was a tournament last year - I think it was Miami - where Murray was not playing well, and kind of let out a loud scream, and then played great and won the match. He said afterwards something along the lines of 'sometimes you have to let out the frustration, you can't hold it in', and it actually helped him to play better. The thing is, as I said before, when he wins, his grumpiness on court is often not mentioned, but when he loses it sudenly becomes the reason he lost.

For example, in the recent AO final, the dominant narrative seemed to be 'Murray lost because he was mentally weak', whereas the narrative that 'Murray lost because Djokoivc has superior groundstrokes and athleticism', which in my opinion is just as important, if not more so, seems to get overlooked.

I also think that calling Murray a 'mental turd' is harsh considering the fact that he's a great fighter, has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 24[?] times. Looking at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website, Andy has:

An excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
He's 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Laver, Agassi, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
He is 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
He's 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbldeon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

Did Murray's at times negative mindset sometimes negatively affect his play, especially pre-Lendl? Yes. Has he sometimes had trouble resetting mentally, especially in big matches? Yes. Has this affected his slam count? No, because the big 3 are just too good anyway.

Some metnal issues? Yes. But a mental turd? Way too harsh.

 

[Great Hands]

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!

Taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk. Lendl acutually said as much when he started coaching Andy. He didn't try to make major technical changes, just made tweaks. On the forehand side, it seemed Lendl was mostly trying to change Andy's atittude on the shot psychologically, make him be more consistently aggressive with it, hit through the ball more consistenly, hit it harder and deeper. It's also about court postioning, in order to get the most out of his forehand. Murray's footwork to the forehand and balance on the shot seemed to improve under Lendl too. But the underlying technique remained the same. Most players on the tour have technical weaknesses in their game, but once a shot is established, it's tricky to start messing with it. To be fair, Andy's forehand is a far better weaker wing than a lot of players' weaker wing. I mean, if we want to talk about tecnical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day. There's a reason even top players have technical weaknesses. If it was that easy to change, then every tennis player would have a perfect technical game, but that's not the case. Murray's all-round game is actually one of the most technically sound out there, it's just not overall as technically great as the big 3.

Luxilon Borg, it seems we actually agree about Murray to a very large extent. The only point we seem to part ways on is the degree to which the mental component has lost Murray matches.

Murray's grumpy demeanour on court doesn't seem to stop him beating the vast majority of players. In fact, many times he shouts at himself and then plays a great shot. In the Wimbledon QF in 2013, when Murray was 2 sets down to Verdasco, he gave himself a stern talking to, shouting at himself etc. It seemed this was what he needed, because he then won the next 3 sets and the match. But if he had lost that match, everyone would have criticised his shouty monologues. Because he won, they weren't mentioned. There was a tournament last year - I think it was Miami - where Murray was not playing well, and kind of let out a loud scream, and then played great and won the match. He said afterwards something along the lines of 'sometimes you have to let out the frustration, you can't hold it in', and it actually helped him to play better. The thing is, as I said before, when he wins, his grumpiness on court is often not mentioned, but when he loses it sudenly becomes the reason he lost.

For example, in the recent AO final, the dominant narrative seemed to be 'Murray lost because he was mentally weak', whereas the narrative that 'Murray lost because Djokoivc has superior groundstrokes and athleticism', which in my opinion is just as important, in fact much more important, seems to get overlooked.

I also think that calling Murray a 'mental turd' is harsh considering the fact that he's a great fighter, has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 24[?] times. Looking at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website, Andy has:

An excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
He's 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Laver, Agassi, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
He is 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
He's 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbldeon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

Some mental issues? Yes. But a mental turd? Way too harsh.

 

[Great Hands]

Luxilon Borg, it seems we actually agree about Murray to a very large extent. The only point we seem to part ways on is the degree to which the mental component has lost Murray matches.

Murray's grumpy demeanour on court doesn't seem to stop him beating the vast majority of players. In fact, many times he shouts at himself and then plays a great shot. In the Wimbledon QF in 2013, when Murray was 2 sets down to Verdasco, he gave himself a stern talking to, shouting at himself etc. It seemed this was what he needed, because he then won the next 3 sets and the match. But if he had lost that match, everyone would have criticised his shouty monologues. Because he won, they weren't mentioned. There was a tournament last year - I think it was Miami - where Murray was not playing well, and kind of let out a loud scream, and then played great and won the match. He said afterwards something along the lines of 'sometimes you have to let out the frustration, you can't hold it in', and it actually helped him to play better. The thing is, as I said before, when he wins, his grumpiness on court is often not mentioned, but when he loses it sudenly becomes the reason he lost.

For example, in the recent AO final, the dominant narrative seemed to be 'Murray lost because he was mentally weak', whereas the narrative that 'Murray lost because Djokoivc has superior groundstrokes and athleticism', which in my opinion is just as important, in fact much more important, seems to get overlooked.

I also think that calling Murray a 'mental turd' is harsh considering the fact that he's a great fighter, has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 24[?] times. Looking at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website, Andy has:

An excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
He's 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Laver, Agassi, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
He is 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
He's 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbldeon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

Some mental issues? Yes. But a mental turd? Way too harsh.

My poiont is not that murray dosn't have metnal issues, bgut that these issues are rendered not very importatn because he they only show up against teh big 3, whose teachinical and athletic supriority measn that they would beat him anyway. IF andy was as good as them technicaly and atheticially, then the fact that he is mentally weaker would be a HUGE issue, and would have cost him dear. as is stands, i don't think it's cost him that much.

 

[Great Hands]

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!

Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk. Lendl actually said as much when he started coaching Andy. He didn't try to make major technical changes, just made tweaks. On the forehand side, it seemed Lendl was mostly trying to change Andy's attitude on the shot psychologically, make him be more consistently aggressive with it, hit through the ball more consistenly, hit it harder and deeper. It's also about court postioning, in order to get the most out of his forehand. Murray's footwork to the forehand and balance on the shot seemed to improve under Lendl too. But the underlying technique remained the same. Most players on the tour have technical weaknesses in their game, but once a shot is established, it's tricky to start messing with it. To be fair, Andy's forehand is a far better weaker wing than a lot of players' weaker wing. I mean, if we want to talk about technical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day. There's a reason even top players have technical weaknesses. If it was that easy to change, then every tennis player would have a perfect technical game, but that's not the case. Murray's all-round game is actually one of the most technically sound out there, it's just not overall as technically great as the big 3.

 

[Great Hands]

Luxilon Borg, it seems we actually agree about Murray to a very large extent. The only point we seem to part ways on is the degree to which the mental component has lost Murray matches.

Murray's grumpy demeanour on court doesn't seem to stop him beating the vast majority of players. In fact, many times he shouts at himself and then plays a great shot. In the Wimbledon QF in 2013, when Murray was 2 sets down to Verdasco, he gave himself a stern talking to, shouting at himself etc. It seemed this was what he needed, because he then won the next 3 sets and the match. But if he had lost that match, everyone would have criticised his shouty monologues. Because he won, they weren't mentioned. There was a tournament last year - I think it was Miami - where Murray was not playing well, and kind of let out a loud scream, and then played great and won the match. He said afterwards something along the lines of 'sometimes you have to let out the frustration, not hold it in', and it actually helped him to play better. The thing is, as I said before, when he wins, his grumpiness on court is often not mentioned, but when he loses it suddenly becomes the reason he lost.

For example, in the recent AO final, the dominant narrative seemed to be 'Murray lost because he was mentally weak', whereas the narrative that 'Murray lost because Djokovic has superior groundstrokes and athleticism', which in my opinion is just as important, in fact much more important, seems to get overlooked. I mean, did Murray really lose that match because he shouted at himself a bit? Or did he lose because when Djokovic is able to dictate from the back of the court, especially on that AO plexicusion, Murray cannot match his groundstrokes?

I also think that calling Murray a 'mental turd' is harsh considering the fact that he's a great fighter, has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 24 times. Looking at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website, Andy has:

An excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
He's 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Laver, Agassi, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
He is 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
He's 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbledon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

Some mental issues? Yes. But a mental turd? Way too harsh.

 

[auto-pilot]

Well my only objection to Mauresmo is that she isn't Lendl.
Its a hard act to follow.

That means you would object to anyone! Lendl did his job, got him over the hump. He's a seasoned multi-slam winner now with a right to follow whatever path he chooses. I'm not sure she's done anything wrong at all

I never said Mauresmo did anything wrong....
We can't change who we are.

 

[Great Hands]

Luxilon Borg, it seems we actually agree about Murray to a very large extent. The only point we seem to part ways on is the degree to which the mental component has lost Murray matches.

Murray's grumpy demeanour on court doesn't seem to stop him beating the vast majority of players. In fact, many times he shouts at himself and then plays a great shot. In the Wimbledon QF in 2013, when Murray was 2 sets down to Verdasco, he gave himself a stern talking to, shouting at himself etc. It seemed this was what he needed, because he then won the next 3 sets and the match. But if he had lost that match, everyone would have criticised his shouty monologues. Because he won, they weren't mentioned. There was a tournament last year - I think it was Miami - where Murray was not playing well, and kind of let out a loud scream, and then played great and won the match. He said afterwards something along the lines of 'sometimes you have to let out the frustration, not hold it in', and it actually helped him to play better. The thing is, as I said before, when he wins, his grumpiness on court is often not mentioned, but when he loses it suddenly becomes the reason he lost.

For example, in the recent AO final, the dominant narrative seemed to be 'Murray lost because he was mentally weak', whereas the narrative that 'Murray lost because Djokovic has superior groundstrokes and athleticism', which in my opinion is just as important, in fact much more important, seems to get overlooked. I mean, did Murray really lose that match because he shouted at himself a bit? Or did he lose because when Djokovic is able to dictate from the back of the court, especially on that AO plexicusion, Murray cannot match his groundstrokes?

I also think that calling Murray a 'mental turd' is harsh considering the fact that he's a great fighter, has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 24 times. Looking at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website, Andy has:

An excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
He's 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Laver, Agassi, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
He is 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
He's 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbledon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

Some mental issues? Yes. But a mental turd? Way too harsh. [In fact, if Murray had been around in the weaker era of the mid-90s to early 00s, he'd probably be considered a mental giant.]

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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!

Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk. Lendl actually said as much when he started coaching Andy. He didn't try to make major technical changes, just made tweaks. On the forehand side, it seemed Lendl was mostly trying to change Andy's attitude on the shot psychologically, make him be more consistently aggressive with it, hit through the ball more consistenly, hit it harder and deeper. It's also about court postioning, in order to get the most out of his forehand. Murray's footwork to the forehand and balance on the shot seemed to improve under Lendl too. But the underlying technique remained the same. Most players on the tour have technical weaknesses in their game, but once a shot is established, it's tricky to start messing with it. To be fair, Andy's forehand is a far better weaker wing than a lot of players' weaker wing. I mean, if we want to talk about technical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day. There's a reason even top players have technical weaknesses. If it was that easy to change, then every tennis player would have a perfect technical game, but that's not the case. Murray's all-round game is actually one of the most technically sound out there, it's just not overall as technically great as the big 3.

"Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk"

Yes, that is the gist of it.

Sure, talking about technical weaknesses can be mind numbing, but since he is a Grand Slam winner and part of the big four who have been dominating tennis his weakness is particularly glaring.

Agree totally Lendl changed his attitude towards the stroke as opposed to physically trying to change it.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I never liked Murray's semi western forehand grip. He cannot cock the wrist back properly and it is a bad grip for low balls. BUt I am aware how difficult it is to change a grip and re learn the shot.

 

[Great Hands]

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!

Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk. Lendl actually said as much when he started coaching Andy. He didn't try to make major technical changes, just made tweaks. On the forehand side, it seemed Lendl was mostly trying to change Andy's attitude on the shot psychologically, make him be more consistently aggressive with it, hit through the ball more consistenly, hit it harder and deeper. It's also about court postioning, in order to get the most out of his forehand. Murray's footwork to the forehand and balance on the shot seemed to improve under Lendl too. But the underlying technique remained the same. Most players on the tour have technical weaknesses in their game, but once a shot is established, it's tricky to start messing with it. To be fair, Andy's forehand is a far better weaker wing than a lot of players' weaker wing. I mean, if we want to talk about technical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day. There's a reason even top players have technical weaknesses. If it was that easy to change, then every tennis player would have a perfect technical game, but that's not the case. Murray's all-round game is actually one of the most technically sound out there, it's just not overall as technically great as the big 3.

"Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk"

Yes, that is the gist of it.

Sure, talking about technical weaknesses can be mind numbing, but since he is a Grand Slam winner and part of the big four who have been dominating tennis his weakness is particularly glaring.

Agree totally Lendl changed his attitude towards the stroke as opposed to physically trying to change it.

wow, after an initial argument, we seem to be agreeing a lot, luxion borg! who would have thought?

by the way, when i sadi ' if we want to talk about technical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day', i didn't mean that i didn't like discussing this! i actually find thd techincal apsect o feth game ver intersting! i was interested in your analyssi fo murray's forehand, and the photos. i just meant that murray is far from alone in his techiancla wekaneses. although i take your point that as a muplltiple grand slam champion, any issues with his techniuqe perhaps deserve to be diesscteced more.



Luxilon Borg, it seems we actually agree about Murray to a very large extent. The only point we seem to part ways on is the degree to which the mental component has lost Murray matches.

Murray's grumpy demeanour on court doesn't seem to stop him beating the vast majority of players. In fact, many times he shouts at himself and then plays a great shot. In the Wimbledon QF in 2013, when Murray was 2 sets down to Verdasco, he gave himself a stern talking to, shouting at himself etc. It seemed this was what he needed, because he then won the next 3 sets and the match. But if he had lost that match, everyone would have criticised his shouty monologues. Because he won, they weren't mentioned. There was a tournament last year - I think it was Miami - where Murray was not playing well, and kind of let out a loud scream, and then played great and won the match. He said afterwards something along the lines of 'sometimes you have to let out the frustration, not hold it in', and it actually helped him to play better. The thing is, as I said before, when he wins, his grumpiness on court is often not mentioned, but when he loses it suddenly becomes the reason he lost.

For example, in the recent AO final, the dominant narrative seemed to be 'Murray lost because he was mentally weak', whereas the narrative that 'Murray lost because Djokovic has superior groundstrokes and athleticism', which in my opinion is just as important, in fact much more important, seems to get overlooked. I mean, did Murray really lose that match because he shouted at himself a bit? Or did he lose because when Djokovic is able to dictate from the back of the court, especially on that AO plexicusion, Murray cannot match his groundstrokes?

I also think that calling Murray a 'mental turd' is harsh considering the fact that he's a great fighter, has a great record against most players, and has beaten the 3 players who are better than him 24 times. Looking at the 'performance zone' on the ATP website, Andy has:

An excellent tie-break record (142-91), superior to that of Lendl, Becker and Edberg.
He's 408-33 when winning the first set, ahead of Laver, Agassi, Rosewall, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Becker etc.
He is 81-120 when losing first set, ahead of McEnroe, Agassi, Edberg, Wilander etc.
He's 114-52 in deciding sets, ahead of McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Federer etc.
He's come back from 2 sets to love down quite a few times (couldn't find the stat on this), and he's only ever lost a match from 2 sets up once in his entire career, when he was 18 years old and lost to Nalbandian at Wimbledon because he got cramps (i.e. not a mental issue).

Some mental issues? Yes. But a mental turd? Way too harsh. [In fact, if Murray had been around in the weaker era of the mid-90s to early 00s, he'd probably be considered a mental giant.]

 

[Great Hands]

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!

Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk. Lendl actually said as much when he started coaching Andy. He didn't try to make major technical changes, just made tweaks. On the forehand side, it seemed Lendl was mostly trying to change Andy's attitude on the shot psychologically, make him be more consistently aggressive with it, hit through the ball more consistenly, hit it harder and deeper. It's also about court postioning, in order to get the most out of his forehand. Murray's footwork to the forehand and balance on the shot seemed to improve under Lendl too. But the underlying technique remained the same. Most players on the tour have technical weaknesses in their game, but once a shot is established, it's tricky to start messing with it. To be fair, Andy's forehand is a far better weaker wing than a lot of players' weaker wing. I mean, if we want to talk about technical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day. There's a reason even top players have technical weaknesses. If it was that easy to change, then every tennis player would have a perfect technical game, but that's not the case. Murray's all-round game is actually one of the most technically sound out there, it's just not overall as technically great as the big 3.

"Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk"

Yes, that is the gist of it.

Sure, talking about technical weaknesses can be mind numbing, but since he is a Grand Slam winner and part of the big four who have been dominating tennis his weakness is particularly glaring.

Agree totally Lendl changed his attitude towards the stroke as opposed to physically trying to change it.

Wow, after an initial argument, we seem to be agreeing a lot, Luxilon Borg! Who would have thought?

By the way, when I said 'If we want to talk about technical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day', I didn't mean that I didn't like discussing this! I actually find the technical aspect of the game very interesting. I was interested in your analysis of Murray's forehand, and the photos. I just meant that Murray is far from alone in his technical weaknesses. Although I take your point that as a multiple Grand Slam champion, any issues with his technique perhaps deserve to be dissected more.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk. Lendl actually said as much when he started coaching Andy. He didn't try to make major technical changes, just made tweaks. On the forehand side, it seemed Lendl was mostly trying to change Andy's attitude on the shot psychologically, make him be more consistently aggressive with it, hit through the ball more consistenly, hit it harder and deeper. It's also about court postioning, in order to get the most out of his forehand. Murray's footwork to the forehand and balance on the shot seemed to improve under Lendl too. But the underlying technique remained the same. Most players on the tour have technical weaknesses in their game, but once a shot is established, it's tricky to start messing with it. To be fair, Andy's forehand is a far better weaker wing than a lot of players' weaker wing. I mean, if we want to talk about technical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day. There's a reason even top players have technical weaknesses. If it was that easy to change, then every tennis player would have a perfect technical game, but that's not the case. Murray's all-round game is actually one of the most technically sound out there, it's just not overall as technically great as the big 3.

"Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk"

Yes, that is the gist of it.

Sure, talking about technical weaknesses can be mind numbing, but since he is a Grand Slam winner and part of the big four who have been dominating tennis his weakness is particularly glaring.

Agree totally Lendl changed his attitude towards the stroke as opposed to physically trying to change it.

Wow, after an initial argument, we seem to be agreeing a lot, Luxilon Borg! Who would have thought?

By the way, when I said 'If we want to talk about technical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day', I didn't mean that I didn't like discussing this! I actually find the technical aspect of the game very interesting. I was interested in your analysis of Murray's forehand, and the photos. I just meant that Murray is far from alone in his technical weaknesses. Although I take your point that as a multiple Grand Slam champion, any issues with his technique perhaps deserve to be dissected more.

We never HAD an argument..just a nice rally.

I am also very, very technical. I can go on about it for pages. heheh..

I guess my main point is we are so spoiled, with uber athletes, machines actually, with little or no weaknesses, when a top player has one, it seems more glaring.

Interestingly, the technical issues that Joker had..the serve, the forehand, fitness, he fixed.

Rafa absolutely shored up his back hand and improved his serve, and his return is a lot better.

 

[Great Hands]

"Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk"

Yes, that is the gist of it.

Sure, talking about technical weaknesses can be mind numbing, but since he is a Grand Slam winner and part of the big four who have been dominating tennis his weakness is particularly glaring.

Agree totally Lendl changed his attitude towards the stroke as opposed to physically trying to change it.

Wow, after an initial argument, we seem to be agreeing a lot, Luxilon Borg! Who would have thought?

By the way, when I said 'If we want to talk about technical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day', I didn't mean that I didn't like discussing this! I actually find the technical aspect of the game very interesting. I was interested in your analysis of Murray's forehand, and the photos. I just meant that Murray is far from alone in his technical weaknesses. Although I take your point that as a multiple Grand Slam champion, any issues with his technique perhaps deserve to be dissected more.

We never HAD an argument..just a nice rally.

I am also very, very technical. I can go on about it for pages. heheh..

I guess my main point is we are so spoiled, with uber athletes, machines actually, with little or no weaknesses, when a top player has one, it seems more glaring.

Interestingly, the technical issues that Joker had..the serve, the forehand, fitness, he fixed.

Rafa absolutely shored up his back hand and improved his serve, and his return is a lot better.

Very true about the technical improvements Rafa and Novak have made. Rafa has always been looking to improve and adjust his game, throughout his career, to improve on surfaces other than clay, to beat post-2011 Novak, to attempt to preserve his body. One of the most impressive things novak ever did, IMO, was sort out that serve. It was so bad in 2010, he had the yips with it, and to completely turn it around into to one the best and most reliable serves on tour, especially in terms of first and second serve combined, was a really great effort. He also did improve the forehand a lot, you're right. So it can be done. So yes, I guess it's a shame murray hasn't looked to improve technically more, it's certainly possible.


The fitness improvements for Novak happened when he realised he was gluten introlerant and changed his diet. Since then, Djokovic has the edge physically over Murray if the match goes long, which it normally does with those two. I don't see what more Andy could do on the physical side, though. I think it stems from the inherent natural difference in their physiques. Djokovic has a naturally slender yet muscular physique, he's wiry, whereas Murray was naturally skinny as a young player and had to beef up thorugh training, so he has a heavier build, and thus the long, grinding matches with Djokovic take more out of him than they do Djokovic. Murray's recent losses to Djokovic at slams have shown that - Murray tires first. I don't think he's not training hard, it's just that Djokovic's natural physique gives him the physical edge as the matches, as they invariably do, go into the 4th or 5th hour. Yet another advantage Djokovic has over Andy that it's difficult for him to overcome. (maybe also because Djokovic has the ability to slide to balls more, whereas Murray has to run more to cover the same distance?)

the one exception isn in the heatr - novk still doesn't liekt eh heat, murray handles it better. the wd final in 2013 was played in temperatures of 40-50 degrees celcius, and when djok lost to nishi at udso last year it was in the hear of day (not saying this was the only factor, andy and nishi played briallintly of course!) but this does seem to djokovic's achillees heel physcially.


inthat 2013 wd final, murray also managed to win in straights, which helped hiom physcuially. and in the us open final 2012, djokovic had had to play consecutive days, and was cramping in the 5th.
the one time when i can remember murray staying with djokovic physcially into the 4th/5th hour of a match without hte advznatage of heat or moer rest was the ao2012 sf, but there murray did seem down and out physcially and then managed to find one last push when a break down itne fifth to win a number of games n a row. but djok still came through 7-5.

[did you say you work with juniors? - check this!] What ages do you work with? do you find ti difficult to help them make technical djjstmetns?]

 

[Great Hands]

"Yes, taking a shot apart to put it back together again can be very dangerous, and yes, it is a risk"

Yes, that is the gist of it.

Sure, talking about technical weaknesses can be mind numbing, but since he is a Grand Slam winner and part of the big four who have been dominating tennis his weakness is particularly glaring.

Agree totally Lendl changed his attitude towards the stroke as opposed to physically trying to change it.

Wow, after an initial argument, we seem to be agreeing a lot, Luxilon Borg! Who would have thought?

By the way, when I said 'If we want to talk about technical weaknesses in different players, we could be here all day', I didn't mean that I didn't like discussing this! I actually find the technical aspect of the game very interesting. I was interested in your analysis of Murray's forehand, and the photos. I just meant that Murray is far from alone in his technical weaknesses. Although I take your point that as a multiple Grand Slam champion, any issues with his technique perhaps deserve to be dissected more.

We never HAD an argument..just a nice rally.

I am also very, very technical. I can go on about it for pages. heheh..

I guess my main point is we are so spoiled, with uber athletes, machines actually, with little or no weaknesses, when a top player has one, it seems more glaring.

Interestingly, the technical issues that Joker had..the serve, the forehand, fitness, he fixed.

Rafa absolutely shored up his back hand and improved his serve, and his return is a lot better.

Very true about the technical improvements Rafa and Novak have made. Rafa has always been looking to improve and adjust his game, throughout his career, to improve on surfaces other than clay, to beat post-2011 Novak, to attempt to preserve his body. One of the most impressive things novak ever did, IMO, was sort out that serve. It was so bad in 2010, he had the yips with it, and to completely turn it around into to one the best and most reliable serves on tour, especially in terms of first and second serve combined, was a really great effort. He also did improve the forehand a lot, you're right. So it can be done. So yes, I guess it's a shame murray hasn't looked to improve technically more, it's certainly possible.


as regards improving fitenees, Novak imporved in this area when he realised he was gluten introlerant and changed his diet. Since then, Djokovic has the edge physically over Murray if the match goes long, which it normally does with those two. I don't see what more Andy could do on the physical side, though. I think it stems from the inherent natural difference in their physiques. Djokovic has a naturally slender yet muscular physique, he's wiry, whereas Murray was naturally skinny as a young player and had to beef up thorugh training, so he has a heavier build, and thus the long, grinding matches with Djokovic take more out of him than they do Djokovic. Murray's recent losses to Djokovic at slams have shown that - Murray tires first. I don't think he's not training hard, it's just that Djokovic's naturally lighter yet muscular physique gives him the physical edge as the matches, as they invariably do, go into the 4th or 5th hour. Yet another advantage Djokovic has over Andy that it's difficult for him to overcome. (maybe also because Djokovic has the ability to slide to balls more, whereas Murray has to run more to cover the same distance?)

the one exception isn in the heatr - novk still doesn't liekt eh heat, murray handles it better. the wd final in 2013 was played in temperatures of 40-50 degrees celcius, and when djok lost to nishi at udso last year it was in the hear of day (not saying this was the only factor, andy and nishi played briallintly of course!) but this does seem to be djokovic's achillees heel physcially.


inthat 2013 wd final, murray also managed to win in straights, which helped hiom physcuially. and in the us open final 2012, djokovic had had to play consecutive days, and was cramping in the 5th.
the one time when i can remember murray staying with djokovic physcially into the 4th/5th hour of a match without hte advznatage of heat or moer rest was the ao2012 sf, but there murray did seem down and out physcially and then managed to find one last push when a break down itne fifth to win a number of games n a row. but djok still came through 7-5.

[did you say you work with juniors? - check this!] What ages do you work with? do you find ti difficult to help them make technical djjstmetns?]

 

[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

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...

She's a bad coach, period....

 

[Great Hands]

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...

She's a bad coach, period....

isabelle, what makes you think she is bad coach? i'm not saying i disagree, but i'm interested in why you think she is bad.

 

[Kirijax]

Just saw this on Twitter and had to share. :snicker

 

[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...

She's a bad coach, period....

I don't get it. What has she done that's bad. From what I've seen she's done ok. She got him to the AO final where he lost to a better player. I'm not sure she should be blamed for that. Do you have specifics or is this a feeling?