"The Andy Murray Problem"
- Thread starter Kirijax
- Start date
Murray gets down on himself very easily.
And I think Lendl's personality helped Murray and inspired him to be more tolerant and professional in the heat of battle (for example in the 3rd set when Murray led 2-0 and needed to keep the heat on Djokovic).
Murray could look up at his players box and see Lendl with a face of stone, and Murray knew that he too needed to stay tough.
Not everyone can impact Murray the way Lendl did.
But Lendl wanted to spend time with his family.
So it was up to Murray to find another inspiring coach.
Not all players require inspiring coaches.
Some players just require tactical coaches.
But Murray requires an inspiring coach.
Is Amelie that?
Probably not.
Murray seems to be falling into his boyish habits all too often.
And I think Lendl's personality helped Murray and inspired him to be more tolerant and professional in the heat of battle (for example in the 3rd set when Murray led 2-0 and needed to keep the heat on Djokovic).
Murray could look up at his players box and see Lendl with a face of stone, and Murray knew that he too needed to stay tough.
Not everyone can impact Murray the way Lendl did.
But Lendl wanted to spend time with his family.
So it was up to Murray to find another inspiring coach.
Not all players require inspiring coaches.
Some players just require tactical coaches.
But Murray requires an inspiring coach.
Is Amelie that?
Probably not.
Murray seems to be falling into his boyish habits all too often.
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
isabelle said:
I don't believe any one disputes that Lendl is the best coach Murray has ever had. You haven't said anything other than you don't think she's the right person for the job. You haven't included anything substantive to explain why though. Under her leadership, he's climbed back up the ranking and competed in a slam final. Unless you have specifics I don't see what the problem is... :blush:
Luxilon Borg said:We never HAD an argument..just a nice rally.Great Hands said:Luxilon Borg said:
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.
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 etc. One of the most impressive things Novak ever did, IMO, was sort out that serve. It was so bad in 2010, 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.
On hte 'murray's mental weakness' thing, except maybe under lendl: i really think it's being overstated. the techniical and physcial aspects that make djokovic better than murray seem to get ignored by some people. i dont know why. maybe cos it's easier to say 'murray lost it mentally', i dont' know.
take this year's ao sf, murray vs berdych. murray grumbled and chuntered thorugh the match, and won in 4 sets. in teh f, murray grumbled anf chuntered through the match, and lost in 4 sets. so was his on court demanour really thr issue, or did he beat berdych cos he's a bter pklayer than him, and lost to djok cos djok's abeeter player than murray? i'd argue it'as the latter. for example, djok can take advatage of murray's weak second serve a lto more than berdych because he's a better returner.
did people metioned mura's grumbling and negativity after the berdcyh match? no. so why after teh djokvic match?
[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. when he wins, his grumpiness on court is 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? ]
there';s also the physcial side. Djokovic has the edge physically over Murray if the match goes long, which it normally does with those two. 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 through 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 losses to Djokovic at slams have shown that - Murray tires first. I don't think he's not training hard (he does weights, endurance training, speed training, yoga for flexibility etc etc), it's just that Djokovic's naturally lighter yet muscular and flexible 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 is in the heat - Novak still doesn't like the heat, Murray handles it better. The WD final in 2013 was played in temperatures of 40-50 degrees celcius, and when Novak lost to Nishi at the USO last year it was in the heat of the day (not saying this was the only factor, Andy and Kei played brilliantly of course!). But this does seem to be Djokovic's Achilles heel physically.
In that 2013 WD final, Murray also managed to win in straights, which helped him physically, 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 physically into the 4th/5th hour of a match without the advantage of heat or more rest was the AO 2012 SF, but there Murray did seem down and out physically and then managed to find one last push when a break down in the fifth to win a number of games in a row. But Djokovic still came through 7-5.
even under lendl, which is being discussed int his thread at the moment, murray shouted at himslef, got negative etc during his us open win, his oplympic wins over djok and federer. not as much in the latter maybe, cos he won every set, btu he did. in the ws f he won, he was 2-0 up in the 3rd set with points for 3-0 and a double break, but when he didn't get tht doubel break his level dropped and he ended up being 4-2 down. similar to the 3rd set in this' year' sao final, excpet that djok played too weel for him to come back into the set this time. int he ao f in 2013, murray got distraced by a feather on the court. all this was under lendl.
lendl did imprve murray's attidue in big matches, being more aggressive, beign better able to move on from misses and setbackls. but murray also won the big events he won under lendl because he's much closer to djok on grass, and djok doesn't liek the ehat (wd f) or the wind (uso f) and undeperformed in both matches.
murray can be negative on court and play great and win, but when he loses, it's suddenyl becaue he was engative on court. it's illogical
[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.]
On the subject of Murray's forehand technical issues, I guess that's a big part of why he is so much less good on clay than on grass and hards, because being able to dictate with the FH is so important on clay, being able to create your own pace on the slower surface. Murray's very good at hitting the backhand harder and flatter, though, which he's used to good effect when he's won points and games (rarely sets) against Nadal on clay (e.g. in that epic Rome match they had last year). But his inability to do the same consistently on the FH side is a problem for him on clay.
Sorry, post is too long, I'll stop now! :snicker
[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?]
take this year's ao sf, murray vs berdych. murray grumbled and chuntered thorugh the match, and won in 4 sets. in teh f, murray grumbled anf chuntered through the match, and lost in 4 sets. so was his on court demanour really thr issue, or did he beat berdych cos he's a bter pklayer than him, and lost to djok cos djok's abeeter player than murray? i'd argue it'as the latter. for example, djok can take advatage of murray's weak second serve a lto more than berdych because he's a better returner.
did people metioned mura's grumbling and negativity after the berdcyh match? no. so why after teh djokvic match?
[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. when he wins, his grumpiness on court is 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? ]
there';s also the physcial side. Djokovic has the edge physically over Murray if the match goes long, which it normally does with those two. 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 through 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 losses to Djokovic at slams have shown that - Murray tires first. I don't think he's not training hard (he does weights, endurance training, speed training, yoga for flexibility etc etc), it's just that Djokovic's naturally lighter yet muscular and flexible 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 is in the heat - Novak still doesn't like the heat, Murray handles it better. The WD final in 2013 was played in temperatures of 40-50 degrees celcius, and when Novak lost to Nishi at the USO last year it was in the heat of the day (not saying this was the only factor, Andy and Kei played brilliantly of course!). But this does seem to be Djokovic's Achilles heel physically.
In that 2013 WD final, Murray also managed to win in straights, which helped him physically, 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 physically into the 4th/5th hour of a match without the advantage of heat or more rest was the AO 2012 SF, but there Murray did seem down and out physically and then managed to find one last push when a break down in the fifth to win a number of games in a row. But Djokovic still came through 7-5.
even under lendl, which is being discussed int his thread at the moment, murray shouted at himslef, got negative etc during his us open win, his oplympic wins over djok and federer. not as much in the latter maybe, cos he won every set, btu he did. in the ws f he won, he was 2-0 up in the 3rd set with points for 3-0 and a double break, but when he didn't get tht doubel break his level dropped and he ended up being 4-2 down. similar to the 3rd set in this' year' sao final, excpet that djok played too weel for him to come back into the set this time. int he ao f in 2013, murray got distraced by a feather on the court. all this was under lendl.
lendl did imprve murray's attidue in big matches, being more aggressive, beign better able to move on from misses and setbackls. but murray also won the big events he won under lendl because he's much closer to djok on grass, and djok doesn't liek the ehat (wd f) or the wind (uso f) and undeperformed in both matches.
murray can be negative on court and play great and win, but when he loses, it's suddenyl becaue he was engative on court. it's illogical
[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.]
On the subject of Murray's forehand technical issues, I guess that's a big part of why he is so much less good on clay than on grass and hards, because being able to dictate with the FH is so important on clay, being able to create your own pace on the slower surface. Murray's very good at hitting the backhand harder and flatter, though, which he's used to good effect when he's won points and games (rarely sets) against Nadal on clay (e.g. in that epic Rome match they had last year). But his inability to do the same consistently on the FH side is a problem for him on clay.
Sorry, post is too long, I'll stop now! :snicker
[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?]
Luxilon Borg
Major Winner
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reactions
- 0
- Points
- 0
Great Hands said:Luxilon Borg said:We never HAD an argument..just a nice rally.Great Hands said: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.
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 etc. One of the most impressive things Novak ever did, IMO, was sort out that serve. It was so bad in 2010, 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.
You nailed it. I don't think winning the US Open without an improved serve and better court positioning from Rafa would have been far more difficult. His serve is still flawed, but that flaw is hugely mitigated by being a lefty.
Novak's serve Odyssey is certainly incredible. No way he wins any more slams without solving that situation. His forehand, while not as lethal as Rafa and Fed's, is amazingly consistent and he can hit from the craziest positions.
The determination that these players had to shore all weaknesses really puts a glaring light on Murray and his crap second serve, and lack of options on the forehand.
federberg said:
Murray got back up the rankings because he got his physical fitness back.
But you can see by his on-court demeanor that he's no the same as he was with Lendl.
Hard to have confidence in this version of Murray when he faces Nadal/Federer/Djokovic.
Lendl kept him in line mentally.
Luxilon Borg said:Great Hands said:Luxilon Borg said: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 etc. One of the most impressive things Novak ever did, IMO, was sort out that serve. It was so bad in 2010, 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.
You nailed it. I don't think winning the US Open without an improved serve and better court positioning from Rafa would have been far more difficult. His serve is still flawed, but that flaw is hugely mitigated by being a lefty.
Novak's serve Odyssey is certainly incredible. No way he wins any more slams without solving that situation. His forehand, while not as lethal as Rafa and Fed's, is amazingly consistent and he can hit from the craziest positions.
The determination that these players had to shore all weaknesses really puts a glaring light on Murray and his crap second serve, and lack of options on the forehand.
I heard a commentator say that Murray's second serve problems are not technical, but psychological - i.e. willing himself to really go for it on the second and risk double faulting. Do you agree?
On a side note, comparing Murray to all-time greats, he's always going to come up short, but I guess the fact that you hold him to those standards is a complement to him, in a way. I just don't hear much talk of all the flaws in, say, Berdych's or Tsonga's games and how they've failed mentally and failed to improve technically to beat the big 3 more, as they both have failed. Murray seems to get particularly harsh criticism in this area, compared to the other players out there. People seem to just accept that players like Tsonga and Berdych aren't as good as the big 3, but when Murray isn't as good as them, there's something "wrong" with him. I find it kind of odd, and illogical. Either you hold everyone to those standards, or no one. Why is Murray singled out? Because he's been a nearly man, I guess, so often, at the latter stages of majors. But Berdych and Tsonga are even more nearly men, having both had the talent to win a slam, but never having done so (and I doubt either of them will, now). There are both technical and mental reasons why not. I suppose, in a parallel universe without the big 3, Murray would be held up as the pinnacle, and there's be threads called 'The Tomas Berdych problem' (the massive chokes!) and 'The Jo-Wilfried Tsonga problem' (those mental lapses! shot selection! backhand! return!), or 'The David Ferrer problem' (why is he too short?), about all the ways that they're not as good as Murray and how they've failed to improve to be as good as him.
Great Hands said:
I think maybe it's because Murray keeps being included in "The Big Four" when he clearly doesn't belong. It's "The Big Three" with a pretender tagging along for the ride on the back of the pickup with his legs dangling off. That's my image of Murray. He is a very lucky chap.
If Murray regains his consistency at Wimbledon (of reaching regular semis/finals), I think he can be an all-time great IF his longevity is good.
Because not a lot of players know how to move on grass, so Murray can cash-in on the decline of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic (plus I don't think Djokovic is as good as Murray at Wimbledon, even though Djokovic has won it twice).
I think Murray would have beaten Berdych at 2010 Wimbledon final, but Nadal was in the way (I know Berdych leads Murray 6-5, but they've never met on grass).
Because not a lot of players know how to move on grass, so Murray can cash-in on the decline of Federer/Nadal/Djokovic (plus I don't think Djokovic is as good as Murray at Wimbledon, even though Djokovic has won it twice).
I think Murray would have beaten Berdych at 2010 Wimbledon final, but Nadal was in the way (I know Berdych leads Murray 6-5, but they've never met on grass).
Kirijax said:
How on earth is this lucky? He gets beaten by them all the time! And criticised for not being them all the time! I'd describe that as unlucky, not lucky!
The term 'big 4' does not imply that Andy is as good as the other 3, just that he's way ahead of everyone else, just the same as the term 'big 3' does not imply that Novak is on the same level of success as Fedal (8 majors compared to 14 and 17), just that he's way ahead of Murray. I use both terms depending on context.
Since Federer's last slam title, Murray has won 2 slam titles.
So I'd rather be Murray than Federer.
Murray is the more likely slam-winner.
So I'd rather be Murray than Federer.
Murray is the more likely slam-winner.
auto-pilot said:
I hope you're right, auto-pilot, I think that Murray deserves a few more majors, his era has been so tough!
auto-pilot said:
Really? And since those two slam victories, Andy has had back surgery and, frankly, has never been the same since (results-wise). And one has to look at playing surface as well when making a comparison. For MY money today, I'd pick Fed any day of the week---on any surface.
lacatch said:
Murray looked pretty good physically at the AO, to me. Certainly far better than last year. He just got to the latter stages of a major and lost to one of the big 3, as he used to do most of the time pre-surgery.
I think you can make a case for either being the more likely to win another slam. Fed is undoubtedly the better player when on, but Murray is considerably younger, giving him potentially more chances to do it.
DarthFed said:^ Would you rather be Novak than Rafa? Going back the past 4+ years we know who is the more likely slam-winner
Well I know Djokovic can't beat Nadal at slams, so I definitely wouldn't want to be Djokovic.
I mean, Nadal won their first 5, Djokovic won 3, and now Nadal has won their last 4 (and the most lopsided was 6-1 4th set at 2013 US Open).
Looks like Djokovic could only beat Nadal when Nadal was bored.
BTW this is a Murray thread, so no more comments on Djokovic vs Nadal from me.
lacatch said:
I had no problem with Murray's physical level at the AO, so I don't see a problem.
He just can't keep his head in the game, because he hasn't got Lendl to keep him in line.
But I think Murray would have won anyway if this was at Wimbledon, because he's the best grasscourt player in the game in my opinion.
I'd be more surprised if Federer wins a slam than Murray.
Great Hands said:
If Muray had not had everything fall in place perfectly for him TWICE, we would be talking about him not having the mental fortitude to win the big one and be included in the Tsonga-Berdych-Ferrer group for lacking one thing or another to ever win one. But he was very lucky and we don't have to discuss that. Now the Murray fans are waiting for him to "return" but I think he is right where he is supposed to be. He might get lucky and everything fall into place for him for another Slam but that's about it for him.
Kirijax said:
Djokovic isn't great at playing in wind, and tennis is an outdoor sport.
So Murray's 2012 US Open win was definitely not "lucky".
And the margin of victory over Djokovic at 2013 Wimbledon was so great that its hard to believe any version of Djokovic would have won.
And Djokovic fought hard, plenty of close games in that match.
And even on Djokovic's favorite surface, Murray almost won in 2012 AO semi.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J | Andy Murray: Moving forward at Indian Wells | Pro Tennis (Mens) | 3 | |
| J | US Open 2021: Andy Murray is Back | Pro Tennis (Mens) | 0 | |
| L | Andy Murray's herculean run to no. 1 ultimately led to his downfall | Pro Tennis (Mens) | 6 | |
| R | Andy Murray Fans Thread | Pro Tennis (Mens) | 320 | |
| L | Andy Murray's slam winning days are over | Pro Tennis (Mens) | 27 |