"The Andy Murray Problem"

[Great Hands]

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.

Things fell into place for Murray because he was knocking on the door. He's been in 8 slam finals. Chances are 1 or 2 were finally going to go his way. Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer have only been in 1 slam final each. Far less chance of things going their way. Murray gave himself more chances for things to "fall in place" for him in a slam final by getting there 7 more times than they did.

I think to describe Murray as lucky to win 2 slams when you look at the quality of opposition he's faced throughout his career is inaccurate. Things went his way on two occasions - as well as him playing very well - but look at all the many more times things didn't go his way! Playing in the same era as arguably the two greatest players of all-time, and another top 10 of all time - undoubtedly the toughest era - at least at the very top - of any era ever - can never be described as 'lucky'.

Agassi got to play players like Rainer Schuttler and Arnaud Clement in grand slam finals, Rafter got to win slams by playing Rusedski and Philippoussis in the final, even Djokovic got to play Tsonga, Federer got to play Baghdatis.

All of Murray's grand slam finals have been against all-time greats, and many of his semis too. For example, when he was 21, he beat the world no1, and winner of the last two majors and GOAT-contender Nadal at the USO 2008 just to get to the final, but then had to play arguably the greatest ever player Fed in the final. When Murray finally broke through to beat Djokovic in the USO F in 2012, Novak was unbeaten at hard court majors for 2 years! To win the Olympics, Andy had to beat the world no2 in the SF and the world no 1 in the final, both all-time greats, and in the WD final he beat the world no.1 and an all-time great. I mean, you can't say he hasn't earned it.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

at least he is top 4 again. that's a bonus.

 

[auto-pilot]

Wimbledon will be much more interesting with Murray back in the mix.

 

[Fiero425]

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.

Things fell into place for Murray because he was knocking on the door. He's been in 8 slam finals. Chances are 1 or 2 were finally going to go his way. Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer have only been in 1 slam final each. Far less chance of things going their way. Murray gave himself more chances for things to "fall in place" for him in a slam final by getting there 7 more times than they did.

I think to describe Murray as lucky to win 2 slams when you look at the quality of opposition he's faced throughout his career is inaccurate. Things went his way on two occasions - as well as him playing very well - but look at all the many more times things didn't go his way! Playing in the same era as arguably the two greatest players of all-time, and another top 10 of all time - undoubtedly the toughest era - at least at the very top - of any era ever - can never be described as 'lucky'.

Agassi got to play players like Rainer Schuttler and Arnaud Clement in grand slam finals, Rafter got to win slams by playing Rusedski and Philippoussis in the final, even Djokovic got to play Tsonga, Federer got to play Baghdatis.

All of Murray's grand slam finals have been against all-time greats, and many of his semis too. For example, when he was 21, he beat the world no1, and winner of the last two majors and GOAT-contender Nadal at the USO 2008 just to get to the final, but then had to play arguably the greatest ever player Fed in the final. When Murray finally broke through to beat Djokovic in the USO F in 2012, Novak was unbeaten at hard court majors for 2 years! To win the Olympics, Andy had to beat the world no2 in the SF and the world no 1 in the final, both all-time greats, and in the WD final he beat the world no.1 and an all-time great. I mean, you can't say he hasn't earned it.

True enough on all counts! I anticipated more breakthroughs which has been my major disappointment of the tour the last decade! Today's players are so much better in skill, athleticism, and confidence, but something's lacking which holds them back so they're lucky to make a major final, much less win 1 or 2 like Murray, Cilic, and Wawrinka! The Big 4 are getting up there, breaking down a little, but it's still the same players winning week in and week out in Majors, Masters, & YEC! :cover :nono uzzled

 

[DarthFed]

^ 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.

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.

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.

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.

And Roger is 4-1 vs. Murray in slams and beat Andy 6-0 6-1 a few months ago. So what basis are you going off of here, the slam H2H or the likelihood that Player A does better than Player B in the future? Djokovic over the last 4 plus years has been far and away the best player in the world.

 

[Billie]

Oh Darth, I admire you

Let him under estimate Nole and Roger at his own peril.

 

[Great Hands]

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.

Things fell into place for Murray because he was knocking on the door. He's been in 8 slam finals. Chances are 1 or 2 were finally going to go his way. Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer have only been in 1 slam final each. Far less chance of things going their way. Murray gave himself more chances for things to "fall in place" for him in a slam final by getting there 7 more times than they did.

I think to describe Murray as lucky to win 2 slams when you look at the quality of opposition he's faced throughout his career is inaccurate. Things went his way on two occasions - as well as him playing very well - but look at all the many more times things didn't go his way! Playing in the same era as arguably the two greatest players of all-time, and another top 10 of all time - undoubtedly the toughest era - at least at the very top - of any era ever - can never be described as 'lucky'.

Agassi got to play players like Rainer Schuttler and Arnaud Clement in grand slam finals, Rafter got to win slams by playing Rusedski and Philippoussis in the final, even Djokovic got to play Tsonga, Federer got to play Baghdatis.

All of Murray's grand slam finals have been against all-time greats, and many of his semis too. For example, when he was 21, he beat the world no1, and winner of the last two majors and GOAT-contender Nadal at the USO 2008 just to get to the final, but then had to play arguably the greatest ever player Fed in the final. When Murray finally broke through to beat Djokovic in the USO F in 2012, Novak was unbeaten at hard court majors for 2 years! To win the Olympics, Andy had to beat the world no2 in the SF and the world no 1 in the final, both all-time greats, and in the WD final he beat the world no.1 and an all-time great. I mean, you can't say he hasn't earned it.

True enough on all counts! I anticipated more breakthroughs which has been my major disappointment of the tour the last decade! Today's players are so much better in skill, athleticism, and confidence, but something's lacking which holds them back so they're lucky to make a major final, much less win 1 or 2 like Murray, Cilic, and Wawrinka! The Big 4 are getting up there, breaking down a little, but it's still the same players winning week in and week out in Majors, Masters, & YEC! :cover :nono uzzled

Thanks Fiero! I think one of the reasons there haven't been more players breaking through is that the top players are genuinely AMAZING. Also, there's 3-4 of them, so even if 1 or 2 happen to be off their game, one of them will still likely win a tournament.

It's a circular thing because the top players are so dominant that it creates a mental block to beat them, which makes them more dominant.

But even though they are still the favourites, none of them have quite the aura they did in the past, with the exception of Novak (and Rafa at RG, of course!).

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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?

Yes, I somewhat agree. There is too big a gap between the first and second serve...and alot of it is his whole mentality..the lack of risk taking.

I mean his 2nd serve lands smack in the middle of the box, a junior could return it aggressively

There is no way a 6 foot 3 player like him with a big first serve can't hit a good heavy deep kicker.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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?

Yes, I somewhat agree. There is too big a gap between the first and second serve...and alot of it is his whole mentality..the lack of risk taking.

I mean his 2nd serve lands smack in the middle of the box, a junior could return it aggressively. He gets away with it by positioning himself 15 feet behind the baseline and running down returns.

There is no way a 6 foot 3 player like him with a big first serve can't hit a good heavy deep kicker.

 

[sid]

I've a question on here,(How many Slams does Andy Murray need to win to get some respect?on this forum)some are very unkind on what he's done to date.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I've a question on here,(How many Slams does Andy Murray need to win to get some respect?on this forum)some are very unkind on what he's done to date.

Does it matter? Apparently, even if he wins, and does so by beating the best player in the world, we still have to wonder what would have happened had said player played his best. Murray can't win, even when he does. Weird.

 

[auto-pilot]

Since June of 2012, Murray has won 2012 US Open and 2013 Wimbledon.
Since June of 2012, Djokovic has won 2013 AO, 2014 Wimbledon, 2015 AO.

So I rate Murray and Djokovic about the same, with Djokovic having a slight edge, but I think Murray is a better Wimbledon player and will always beat Djokovic there (regardless of what Djokovic does versus 33-year-old Federer at Wimbledon).

 

[DarthFed]

Lol, you rate Djokovic and Murray about the same? So the 2 YE #1's in 2012 and 2014 as well as 3 straight YEC's and ton more MS wins mean nothing? At Wimbledon I agree Murray has the edge in that matchup but it's more like 60-40 or 70-30. Interestingly enough Roger playing like he did in the final last year would have beaten Murray no question...matchups.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Haven't been around for a while so not read the whole thread but my input is just that these comments seem a bit odd and unprovoked. It's been going on for years (Murray's antics) and while many people don't like it, it does generate a talking point which is what keeps journalists like Bodo in a job.

I personally don't like how he acts on court but I connect with his off-court persona and his honest personality. Ultimately, its up to him how he acts on court. As a tennis fan, I like that he acts in his own way because it gives us something to talk about and my favourite thing about tennis is that it's two individuals battling one another with all the psychological and physical effects of a mano e mano clash on show.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Murray is infinitely more interesting off the court than the other 3.

 

[sid]

Cake walk for Andy only lost 2 games in match.
next.

 

[nehmeth]

Cake walk for Andy only lost 2 games in match.
next.

Might be a little early to get excited, but he's definitely showing more motivation than previous years when his Aussie hopes were dashed. Well played match.

 

[isabelle]

Hope this time nobody'll ask me why I don't like Amélie as Andy's coach...Andy should have beaten Coric 6/1 6/1 in Dubai....Andy has a big problem, this problem is his coach

 

[britbox]

Everyone else has the "Andy Murray problem" too. It's largely sharing the same field as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Murray has at least solved his problem more often than the rest of the field.

 

[Federberg]

Lol! Still not sure why Murray getting beat has to be his coaches fault?