Bollettieri thinks Murray can't win a GS

This is taken from an interview with SPOX, translated from German:

SPOX: Andy Murray would be glad if he would finally win his first Grand Slam tournament. The Scot was close to it a few times when it will be for him so far?

Bollettieri: Never.

SPOX: Excuse me? Andy Murray has everything that a great champion.

Bollettieri: Look, Andy Murray is a great character, much like my past was Andre Agassi. But why you do not just take what Boris Becker has said about him. "Andy Murray has no weapon and never will be a Grand Slam title to get," which are Boris's words. And I'm close to. Murray has improved his forehand and his serve, his footwork is amazing, he's an outstanding player return, he has a world-class backhand, but in order to win a Grand Slam tournament, he would have to play a little bit offensively. The question is whether he has the weapons to win a really big thing? I do not think so. Even more so, because there are so many other strong boys. It is not easy for Murray.

Here is the link;

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.spox.com/de/sport/mehrsport/tennis/1108/Artikel/nick-bollettieri-interview-us-open-novak-djokovic-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-andy-murray-tommy-haas-sabine-lisicki.html&ei=8YBVTsucCIbLtAaB-5HmDw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbollettieri%2Bspox%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1152%26bih%3D747%26prmd%3Divns

That's been my view.

Perhaps a window is opening up, that's if Nadal is really 'declining'. . . but given how Nadal made Murray look average at both Wimbledon and the French this year I don't think that's really the case.

Thanks for the link Josiah. I wonder whether Raiders is Bollettieri in disguise. He is indicating that Murray's game is missing a special winning ingredient and is not aggressive enough to be "certain" of winning at least one grand slam title at the present time.

Well, Bolleteri knows a great deal about tennis but I don't really concur with him on this one. I think Andy does have some top notch weapons. It is true that his forehand is simply not in the same league as the other 3 guys ranked above him. That and his second serve need to get better but I think right now with the game that he has he is good enough to win one, and probably will. That being said he is in his prime window, and if he doesn't get one in the next 2 years he probably never will.

Interesting link. Bollettieri is unquestionably one of greatest coach of modern tennis, and his opinion carries obviously a lot of weight. That a guy like him expresses such a clear cut opinion is certainly no good news for Murray.

On Murray defence, Bollettieri has been always the promoter of a tennis style a bit one sidededly focused on aggressive baseline rallies (eg Agassi and Sharapova game syle). He’s certanly not the best guy to appreciate a solid and skilful defensive player.

Bollettieri openly offered his services to Murray as a coach after he finished with Maclagan but was knocked back so could it be a bit of "sour grapes"!?!

He does make some interesting points, even though they seem blunt. I think the point he alludes to is what has been said so many times that he needs to be more offensive.

I think what Nick needs to realise is that Agassi became a much better player when he learnt the art of defence. Once you get the right balance, you can enjoy Slam success.

sportslover wrote:Bollettieri openly offered his services to Murray as a coach after he finished with Maclagan but was knocked back so could it be a bit of "sour grapes"!?!

Bollettieiri is speaking from a neutral view, surely a neutral view is more meaningful than say, his biggest fan? (you)

The only chance he has to start beating the top guys in the slams is to watch a video of his 2008 USO semi and play exactly the same way, when he could boss Nadal about and not get frustrated after losing the long rallies. Murray's original game was to take the first strike before his opponent, that is what he needs to go back to and not this leg breaking marathon style of push-tennis, imo.

After he spent time training with Agassi, you would think years later he would have took something in but I doubt he listened to Agassi (arrogance maybe?)

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

sportslover wrote:Bollettieri openly offered his services to Murray as a coach after he finished with Maclagan but was knocked back so could it be a bit of "sour grapes"!?!

Bollettieiri is speaking from a neutral view, surely a neutral view is more meaningful than say, his biggest fan? (you)

The only chance he has to start beating the top guys in the slams is to watch a video of his 2008 USO semi and play exactly the same way, when he could boss Nadal about and not get frustrated after losing the long rallies. Murray's original game was to take the first strike before his opponent, that is what he needs to go back to and not this leg breaking marathon style of push-tennis, imo.

After he spent time training with Agassi, you would think years later he would have took something in but I doubt he listened to Agassi (arrogance maybe?)

I think Murray needs to repeat his clay court peformances of this year.

A fair comment would be that in most of his matches it was quite tentative and then he clicked into gear and played aggressive and got himself into winning positions. He shown it can be done. If he can sustain that in 7 best of 5 set matches is another thing.

As Wimbledon showed that when he played Rafa in the first set he was brilliant. Started the 2nd set well and then it was downhill as it was difficult for him to continue to play aggressively throughout the match.

He has the weapons in his game to do it. Just a case of executing it early in matches. Go back to FO 2011 against Troicki, Wimbledon 2008 against Gasquet and US Open 2008 against Melzer where the situations of those matches that he had to play aggressively and he turned those matches around into victories.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

sportslover wrote:Bollettieri openly offered his services to Murray as a coach after he finished with Maclagan but was knocked back so could it be a bit of "sour grapes"!?!

Bollettieiri is speaking from a neutral view, surely a neutral view is more meaningful than say, his biggest fan? (you)

The only chance he has to start beating the top guys in the slams is to watch a video of his 2008 USO semi and play exactly the same way, when he could boss Nadal about and not get frustrated after losing the long rallies. Murray's original game was to take the first strike before his opponent, that is what he needs to go back to and not this leg breaking marathon style of push-tennis, imo.

After he spent time training with Agassi, you would think years later he would have took something in but I doubt he listened to Agassi (arrogance maybe?)

Who is the he that you are referring to?

Nore Staat wrote:Thanks for the link Josiah. I wonder whether Raiders is Bollettieri in disguise. He is indicating that Murray's game is missing a special winning ingredient and is not aggressive enough to be "certain" of winning at least one grand slam title at the present time.

No actually . I'm not him. I was raiders_of_the_lost_ark even on earlier 606 where 10-12 months back I stated exactly this. Lack of weapons. Why a player would chose to be a defensive player? A player often turns to defensive styles, trying to outlast the opponent in stamina and lung capacity, chase and retrieve all balls, wait-for-errors, defend from 5 m behind the baseline game, try to draw errors etc only when they don't have weapons to play attacking tennis. In tennis the skill of great retrievals, counter punching , trying to take advantage of opponent's weakness, pushing and trying to draw errors is still not viewed in the same level of skill and talent as the skill of aggressive shot making and ability to pull brilliant winners are. If you ask anyone who would he/she like to be

1. a player with great agility, stamina and amazing retrieval skills and great ability to win drawing errors from opponents
2. An aggressive and brilliant shot-maker who is able to hit stunning winners

IMVHO I think most will chose 2. because this is what is always a far more highly valued skill. It also takes more courage to be aggressive in tennis and courage is a highly valued skill not only in tennis but in life.

Also such players try to be highly tactical in their approach which is very very important to their success. They try to build great stamina on court because such style is highly demanding in terms of fitness and strength of legs and lungs. Murray once said "I want to be strong like Nadal". Nadal is the pioneer of the generation of players who have taken the physical aspect of the game to level higher than ever before. But Nadal is a highly skilled shot maker as well, only between him and the opponent, he is often not the first one to go for it. Great shot-making also tells about the mindset of a player to be courageous and go for the win rather than wait patiently and try not to lose. Federer once said in an interview prior to a match against Murray "Its going to be tactical. With Murray its always tactical". Paul Annacone said "Muray is the best counter puncher on tour" which I agree to. But this also is tough to deny that Murrays achievements are just as far a player with limited weapons and defensive style of play can go. Murray has the heart but lacks in weapons. Winning a slam with this style of play in the era where shot makers like Federer and Nadal are there, is always very very tough for a defensive player.. even maybe just too far to get. Only Delpotro has done it to win a slam beating both. And he did it with absolute powerful shots, great serving and brilliant winners. Thats the kind of performance it takes to win just 1 slam. Look at Djokovic. He stared to beat Nadal and Federer and its has put his confidence so so very high that he has almost become invincible this year.

I had even said this before and still say that Murray may win a slam but it won't be like he will be able to dominate like Federer, Nadal. A large percentage of wins for counter punchers and defensive players are 'ugly' with many breaks and unforced errors and where the opponent too had a fairly good chance to win. Such players will have some wins defeating the best players, but also very tame losses to far lesser players.




Lots of Murray fans and even others would like to see him be aggressive and play the attacking shots more often than he does. But the thing is that is not at all easy for Murray. He himself admits that he is comfortable playing the defensive game and is not worried about what others think and that defensive game works for him and he won't change it. Aggressive tennis and high level shot making is not natural to him. Thats why he feels uncomfortable playing it, and on most occasions doesn't and reverts to what he is comfortable at. Every player has his own natural style of play which they can't change. Can Federer turn to the 5m behind the baseline, running and retrieving and chasing all balls and defending game? No way he can do it. He never based his game on long rallies and defending and running and retrieving and chasing. That is not natural to him. Similarly Murray will never become a great aggressive player no matter how much his fans or supports of others want him to be. He is just not at it naturally.


I have had a lot of attacks from Murray fans on another post. I hope for some better discussion here.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Thanks for the link Josiah. I wonder whether Raiders is Bollettieri in disguise. He is indicating that Murray's game is missing a special winning ingredient and is not aggressive enough to be "certain" of winning at least one grand slam title at the present time.

No actually . I'm not him. I was raiders_of_the_lost_ark even on earlier 606 where 10-12 months back I stated exactly this. Lack of weapons. Why a player would chose to be a defensive player? A player often turns to defensive styles, trying to outlast the opponent in stamina and lung capacity, chase and retrieve all balls, wait-for-errors, defend from 5 m behind the baseline game, try to draw errors etc only when they don't have weapons to play attacking tennis. In tennis the skill of great retrievals, counter punching , trying to take advantage of opponent's weakness, pushing and trying to draw errors is still not viewed in the same level of skill and talent as the skill of aggressive shot making and ability to pull brilliant winners are. If you ask anyone who would he/she like to be

1. a player with great agility, stamina and amazing retrieval skills and great ability to win drawing errors from opponents
2. An aggressive and brilliant shot-maker who is able to hit stunning winners

IMVHO I think most will chose 2. because this is what is always a far more highly valued skill. It also takes more courage to be aggressive in tennis and courage is a highly valued skill not only in tennis but in life.

Also such players try to be highly tactical in their approach which is very very important to their success. They try to build great stamina on court because such style is highly demanding in terms of fitness and strength of legs and lungs. Murray once said "I want to be strong like Nadal". Nadal is the pioneer of the generation of players who have taken the physical aspect of the game to level higher than ever before. But Nadal is a highly skilled shot maker as well, only between him and the opponent, he is often not the first one to go for it. Great shot-making also tells about the mindset of a player to be courageous and go for the win rather than wait patiently and try not to lose. Federer once said in an interview prior to a match against Murray "Its going to be tactical. With Murray its always tactical". Paul Annacone said "Muray is the best counter puncher on tour" which I agree to. But this also is tough to deny that Murrays achievements are just as far a player with limited weapons and defensive style of play can go. Murray has the heart but lacks in weapons. Winning a slam with this style of play in the era where shot makers like Federer and Nadal are there, is always very very tough for a defensive player.. even maybe just too far to get. Only Delpotro has done it to win a slam beating both. And he did it with absolute powerful shots, great serving and brilliant winners. Thats the kind of performance it takes to win just 1 slam. Look at Djokovic. He stared to beat Nadal and Federer and its has put his confidence so so very high that he has almost become invincible this year.

I had even said this before and still say that Murray may win a slam but it won't be like he will be able to dominate like Federer, Nadal. A large percentage of wins for counter punchers and defensive players are 'ugly' with many breaks and unforced errors and where the opponent too had a fairly good chance to win. Such players will have some wins defeating the best players, but also very tame losses to far lesser players.




Lots of Murray fans and even others would like to see him be aggressive and play the attacking shots more often than he does. But the thing is that is not at all easy for Murray. He himself admits that he is comfortable playing the defensive game and is not worried about what others think and that defensive game works for him and he won't change it. Aggressive tennis and high level shot making is not natural to him. Thats why he feels uncomfortable playing it, and on most occasions doesn't and reverts to what he is comfortable at. Every player has his own natural style of play which they can't change. Can Federer turn to the 5m behind the baseline, running and retrieving and chasing all balls and defending game? No way he can do it. He never based his game on long rallies and defending and running and retrieving and chasing. That is not natural to him. Similarly Murray will never become a great aggressive player no matter how much his fans or supports of others want him to be. He is just not at it naturally.


I have had a lot of attacks from Murray fans on another post. I hope for some better discussion here.

Again playing style would be based on %

Playing attacking = Higher % of UE's
Defensive style = Lower % of UE's

Great players past and present have equally got this balance right. Players like Sampras and Federer would force defensive players to be more aggressive. Hence why players like Murray struggle as it is not in his game to hit winners on every single point. Taking players out of their comfort zone. Murray does this to Federer and Nadal has too.

That is why Federer and Sampras sit on the top of GS haul because of the sheer winners they hit on a 'consistant' basis.

Nadal takes Federer out of his comfort zone agreed with, but Murray.... so beating Rog in Shanghai and Dubai is the same as beating him in US and AO?
think I might have to disagree a little there!!

1. The assumption that Murray is not aggressive, is a fallacy.
2. The assumption that a player can win by being aggressive all the time = every shot is a fallacy.
3. A balanced mix of aggression and defence is what is needed, which may be called "controlled" aggression.
4. Even taking the 'ball early' falls under the category of 'controlled aggression'.

Bollettieri is echoing Becker's words, not his own.

Regarding Agassi, he won two slams under Bollettieri, but needed a Brad Gilbert/Darren Cahill (post 1994) to win further slams, IIRC.

Federer, for example, has (had?) exemplary defensive skills.

Nadal has exemplary aggressive skills.

Djokovic is v2.0 of Nadal.

Del Potro can cover the court defensively with his DHBH/FH and can play rallies.

Pure aggression at the highest echelons is unlikely be the basis for a player to win a slam.

Even during the heydays of S&V, a passing shot from the baseline was important to break your opponent's serve.

Llodra, Stepanek have grounding in S&V and are successful doubles players with a good singles record (Raiders - please notice I did not use the word 'great' ).

Davydenko has shown that taking the ball early but playing baseline tennis is possible (sadly he does not have a slam due to Fedal).

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nadal takes Federer out of his comfort zone agreed with, but Murray.... so beating Rog in Shanghai and Dubai is the same as beating him in US and AO?
think I might have to disagree a little there!!

So a win is not a win unless you win elsewhere??

So Murray having the better H2H over Federer holds no substance?

Hmmmmmmm.

Let's put * by Master events on all records.

So a win is not a win unless you win elsewhere?? Rolling Eyes

So Murray having the better H2H over Federer holds no substance?

Hmmmmmmm.

Let's put * by Master events on all records.

Read the title Ffs, this is not about bo3 sets at the Masters it is bo5 in the biggest, prestigious tournaments over 2 weeks playing 7 matches. So.. if Wigan beat Man United in the Carling Cup and Fa Cup (who cares?) but finish behind them in the league, would that really affect Man Utd?

It would be better for Murray to have a losing h2h with Federer in the Masters, but to have beaten Fed in the slams. You don't get respect if you can't beat them in the slams!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

So a win is not a win unless you win elsewhere?? Rolling Eyes

So Murray having the better H2H over Federer holds no substance?

Hmmmmmmm.

Let's put * by Master events on all records.

Read the title Ffs, this is not about bo3 sets at the Masters it is bo5 in the biggest, prestigious tournaments over 2 weeks playing 7 matches. So.. if Wigan beat Man United in the Carling Cup and Fa Cup (who cares?) but finish behind them in the league, would that really affect Man Utd?

It would be better for Murray to have a losing h2h with Federer in the Masters, but to have beaten Fed in the slams. You don't get respect if you can't beat them in the slams!

Bringing football into the equation? Smart!

Murray has beaten Federer. Doesn't matter if was in the Masters or his backgarden.

Like LF said he was echoing what Becker's words. Hardily groundbreaking.

So take all factors into account FFS!

I'm sorry, I don't understand the logic here. Murray has beaten all of the top players many times, and has got to 3 grand slam finals. If his game wasn't good enough he wouldn't have those wins against the top guys, and wouldn't have reached the 3 finals.

The issue is not about Murray not having enough attributes, or enough weapons... It's about him playing well in a slam final. He has frozen in those 3 finals, that's all in my opinion.

He has a bomb of a first serve when it's working and a fantastic backhand (up the line AND crosscourt) Yet I keep hearing "he has no weapons".

I must be watching a different sport!

This article doesn't sound objective. It sounds like "I don't like Murray, and I'm going to use any opportunity to articulate it"

Danny_1982 wrote:I'm sorry, I don't understand the logic here. Murray has beaten all of the top players many times, and has got to 3 grand slam finals. If his game wasn't good enough he wouldn't have those wins against the top guys, and wouldn't have reached the 3 finals.

The issue is not about Murray not having enough attributes, or enough weapons... It's about him playing well in a slam final. He has frozen in those 3 finals, that's all in my opinion.

He has a bomb of a first serve when it's working and a fantastic backhand (up the line AND crosscourt) Yet I keep hearing "he has no weapons".

I must be watching a different sport!

This article doesn't sound objective. It sounds like "I don't like Murray, and I'm going to use any opportunity to articulate it"

So do you think he can win a GS? Should I just write positive articles about Murray to make you feel better? Step out of your bubble

Yes I do think he can win one. I base that on the fact that he has beaten all of the threee players ranked above him many times, and that he has reached 3 finals already and is entering his peak now.

It will be difficult for him, more difficult than it was for the other 3 to win the first one. He is very unlikely to meet the quality of player that the other 3 did when winning their first, he is more likely to have to beat a great player in the final than a good one like they did. He can definitely do it though.

That's not to say he will, but I certainly believe he can. Bollettieri's opinion has to be respected of course, but there are many that differ. Agassi thinks he'll be a multi slam winner, Nadal has stated the same. Everyone has an opinion and it's not difficult to search online and find one that matches your own, but that doesn't really prove anything.

Do I want you to write only positive articles on Murray? Not really. A gushing article about Murray would have zero impact on how happy I am. You don't seem to like him or rate him, so you are obviously free to articulate that. Just like I'm free to state if I think it's objective / correct or not.

No bubble here mate, so no need to step out of anything.

Some good points Danny. I agree that Murray seemed to freeze in his 3 finals, or certainly was a touch inhibited. He played well at stages, should have won a set at Aus 2010 really. The mental wear-and-tear of 3 losses is a bit of a worry, but others have overcome this, i.e. Agassi and Lendl. I hope Murray can too.

It seems to me that his mindset is sometimes too easily swayed in to negativity, as if he can't believe the opponent hit such a good shot and rather than rise to the challenge he shrinks away from it. Finding the balance of aggression to caution is key too, thought he did it perfectly in the first set at SW19 against Nadal. It should take more than one missed opportunity to go so off the boil, the sense that the fear of failure had suddenly grabbed him was palpable.

4th Street - agree with most of that.

He certainly froze in 2 of the 3 finals, the first and last. Against Federer in Australia last year he actually had a chance to go a break up midway through the first before he was broken, and should have won the third. So he played well enough to create his chances but just didn't take them. He was only really outplayed in the second set.

But yeah, the other 2 he froze / was too tentative... Whatever the reason, he didn't impose himself at all. He's got a fairly tough draw this time round, second only to Federer maybe in terms of who he would (probably) have to beat. But he has good momentum and confidence after his win in cincy, so he has a good chance.

Danny and 4th Street

Definitely agree with the points you have both made. The occasion does appear to get to him. No guarantees he will win a slam and is very unlikely to go down as an all time great but he definitely has the skills required.

Yep, have to echo Dany and 4th street's logic Murray does have the weapons to win a slam. Did Mats wilander have overwhelming weapons he won 7 slams? He is one of the best returners in the game and has one of the best backhands, plus very good feel at net. But I also agree that he needs to do a better job at controlled aggression as Laverfan has stated. His default position is passive and defensive as Raider states. But I have seen him play many matches with a better mix of controlled aggression and simply blow out quality opponents. He has to be better at looking for the first good opportunity to attack and taking it. His lack of a great forehand does hamper him at times in this respect but his overrall package of shots is good enough to win a slam right now.

Have to disagree with Raiders regarding attacking and defensive players.

Yes, Fed is an attacking player, but he was also one of the best defenders on tour at his peak. I would say he was as good at defending then as Nadal and Djokovic are now. If you dont believe me just youtube some videos from 05-06.

In todays predominantly baseline game, a strong defense is as important as having attacking weapons. In the serve and volley era, not so much for obvious reasons - it's impossible to defend against a well placed volley.

So it's not so clear cut as stating that there are attacking players and there are defensive players, and that the former are always more successful. The best players in THIS era are those who can combine both aspects best and those who have the best transition game from defense to attack - this is where I think Murray lacks.

emancipator wrote:Have to disagree with Raiders regarding attacking and defensive players.

Yes, Fed is an attacking player, but he was also one of the best defenders on tour at his peak. I would say he was as good at defending then as Nadal and Djokovic are now. If you dont believe me just youtube some videos from 05-06.

In todays predominantly baseline game, a strong defense is as important as having attacking weapons. In the serve and volley era, not so much for obvious reasons - it's impossible to defend against a well placed volley.

So it's not so clear cut as stating that there are attacking players and there are defensive players, and that the former are always more successful. The best players in THIS era are those who can combine both aspects best and those who have the best transition game from defense to attack - this is where I think Murray lacks.

I agree with you wholeheartedly emanicpator - actually Fed is still pretty good at defence, I think he makes more unforced errors now because he is sometimes that little bit slower to the ball and so he is not always as perfectly in balance to hit every ball as he once seemed to be, consequently it is also easier to get him on the run. He is an amazing athlete, and it is incredible just how fast he still is around court.

The top three are all brilliant defenders and aggressors. Regarding Murray, I think like others have said, I cannot put it better than Danny and Positively - and perhaps the reason that Andy is sometimes a little slow to find aggressor mode is that he has become a little more inhibited than he seemed to be in his early years.

I think the hysterical British press and their tendency to overhype and pile on the pressure have been handled very well by Murray, but I do think that their extreme critical interest have affected his enjoyment and courage on the court on the biggest stages.

In the same interview, Bolettieri also said Novak is the most complete player of all times....hey, NOW he's worked it out...I've been tellin' the same for years....now when will people start taking me seriously

How can he be complete if he can't complete tournaments

sportslover wrote:How can he be complete if he can't complete tournaments

Good, old Nick will have to answer that one....he,he....I only know that Novak is the player that's ever played the game...
I hope I don'tneed to explain that one...it's obvious to a sharp, trained eye

noleisthebest wrote:

sportslover wrote:How can he be complete if he can't complete tournaments

Good, old Nick will have to answer that one....he,he....I only know that Novak is the player that's ever played the game...
I hope I don'tneed to explain that one...it's obvious to a sharp, trained eye

Whatever your drinking can we please get a glass

I have already had two doubles of Scotland's finest, so maybe you would like what I am drinking SL.

What Murray needs to do is stop showing emotion on the court, ever heard of a poker bluff? He's just giving the opponent more energy when he gets mad at himself for losing a single point, difference with him and Mcenroe is that Mcenroe only got mad at the umpire, Murray likes to berate himself. He just makes himself look like a total prat with his self-hating pity.

emancipator wrote:Have to disagree with Raiders regarding attacking and defensive players.

Yes, Fed is an attacking player, but he was also one of the best defenders on tour at his peak. I would say he was as good at defending then as Nadal and Djokovic are now. If you dont believe me just youtube some videos from 05-06.

In todays predominantly baseline game, a strong defense is as important as having attacking weapons. In the serve and volley era, not so much for obvious reasons - it's impossible to defend against a well placed volley.

So it's not so clear cut as stating that there are attacking players and there are defensive players, and that the former are always more successful. The best players in THIS era are those who can combine both aspects best and those who have the best transition game from defense to attack - this is where I think Murray lacks.

I think you misunderstood my point. I never said that he can't defend or is not good at defensive skill. He indeed is.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Can Federer turn to the 5m behind the baseline, running and retrieving and chasing all balls and defending game? No way he can do it. He never based his game on long rallies and defending and running and retrieving and chasing. That is not natural to him.

The point I was trying to make is what is Federer's natural playing style, being agressive or defensive? He is absolutely brilliant at defense as well, and he had to be else its not possible to be a complete player. But What is it that he first tries in a point 1. attack and be aggressive or 2.look to defend and play safe? He is almost 100% of the time the first aggressor on his own serve and about equally when receiving (depending on the quality of serve). This is easy for him, because being aggressive come natural to him. He always based his game on that, attack and be aggressive. But is it possible for Federer to play points after points from 5m behind the baseline, running around all the time and retrieving all balls, playing long rallies? He can do it one a few points but no way possible for him to keep doing it like Murray, Nadal or Djokovic can do. He just doesn't have the strength and lung capacity to play such a game. This is not Federer's natural game. Many of Federer's long matches have been lost by him due to exhaustion. Murray, Nadal, Djokovic have the immense capacity to be able to outlast the opponent in sheer strength and stamina no matter how long the match goes on. Federer's can't do this.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Many of Federer's long matches have been lost by him due to exhaustion. Murray, Nadal, Djokovic have the immense capacity to be able to outlast the opponent in sheer strength and stamina no matter how long the match goes on. Federer's can't do this.

What do you think of the following statement from Federer?

"The surfaces are much slower now, so you need to find different ways of winning the point, which is fine. I like to grind it out and go through 10, 20 shot rallies sometimes to win the point and break the opponent's will down. The game has definitely changed with strings and balls over the last 10 years."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Tuesday-Federer-Wimbledon-Destiny.aspx

Is "sometimes" the keyword in the highlighted part?

laverfan wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Many of Federer's long matches have been lost by him due to exhaustion. Murray, Nadal, Djokovic have the immense capacity to be able to outlast the opponent in sheer strength and stamina no matter how long the match goes on. Federer's can't do this.

What do you think of the following statement from Federer?

"The surfaces are much slower now, so you need to find different ways of winning the point, which is fine. I like to grind it out and go through 10, 20 shot rallies sometimes to win the point and break the opponent's will down. The game has definitely changed with strings and balls over the last 10 years."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Tuesday-Federer-Wimbledon-Destiny.aspx

Is "sometimes" the keyword in the highlighted part?

laverfan, I can't get what are you trying to imply here. In this statement Federer was more emphasizing on the slowness of courts these days. That sometimes in the second statement is just a general word indicating that at times he does play long rallies and break the opponents will down. I already stated that he can do it sometimes.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: He can do it one a few points but no way possible for him to keep doing it like Murray, Nadal or Djokovic can do.

That few points in my sentence is what is sometimes that Federer is referring to.

Are you suggesting that Federer too can play and predominantly does the game of running around, chasing all balls, retrieving even the most toughest shots, grinding out the points with long rallies just as much as Nadal, Murray and Djokovic do? These things can't be put in as clear black and white. No player plays a 100% offensive, aggressive game and no one with 100% only defensive and retrievals. But the playing style and strength is determined by what they go with first in their genral point-play, how often they do it.

Do you want to suggest that even Federer like Murray, Nadal, Djokovic has stamina and lungs to be able to grind and outlast the opponent? If he was he could at least have tried it once in those losses to Nadal at FO and other masters tournaments on clay. But he didn't. Why? Because he just can't stay with Nadal in that particular style of play. Nadal is miles ahead of Federer when it comes to grinding a win. Federer will always have to play the game he normally does i.e. be aggressive and go for winners. Because this is what he is comfortable at and it comes natural to him. See his win against an 'invincible' Djo at the FO 2011. It hardly looked like a clay court match. Even commentators were saying that level of shot-making in that match doesn't at all looks like it is being played on clay. He is so aggressive and attacking on most points even on clay which completely suite players with great strength, stamina, lung capacity to play long rallies, great retrieval skils.

Its not possible for players change their natural game. It can be altered a bit based on conditions and a player own capability to adapt to the changes, but he still predominantly will play what he/she is natural at. That why its call 'natural'.

You say Federer can't chase points down and then in another statement say that he can 'sometimes'?

So what is your exact position on this because he can either do it, on a limited basis or he can't do it at all!!

I can clarify my view without being confused or full of contradtiction.

Federer cannot play a lung busting game. His style of play and movement does not allow him to. He is very rarely rushed off his feet as his footwork is clean and quite 'slow' as it is more of a slow stepping pace due to his amazing balance. Players like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are very much 'heavy' footed and therefore they tend to have a 'high' pace footwork. I am surprised given that Nadal is ambidextrous that he has never been able to adopt a slower pace to his footwork.

Federer has never been able to adopt this on clay because the surface is that slow. This enables Nadal to retrieve shots that he is not able to on Hard Courts.

From what I read of Raiders posts I agree that murray is primarily a counterpuncher. But the bridge too far for me on this one is when people say he lacks weapons. We should all lack weapons then, the man has been among the best returners in the game for years and has one of the best two handed backhands in the game. Many a player has won a grandslam championship with less weapons at their disposal than Murray. Chang and Wilander are two that come to mind. I remember watching mats play and can't think of a single weapon that he had after 30 years. I mean with Pete you think the serve, with Mac you think the volleys, with Roger the forehand. Murray has the requisite tools right now to be a grandslam winner.

Looks like we are going round the same loop again as on the Worst Masters thread. On that Nore Staat gave a good summary of where Murray's game is currently. Whether or not that is good enough to win a GS I will say I don't think so. However I hope that he does make the small adjustments needed to take him to the next level. Bolletteri (a great coach) and others are totally entitled to their opinion on this but only time will tell if they are right.

Will Murray win a GS? Certainly he can, although not sure if he WILL. However, he has an excellent chance in the two weeks coming up. Fed, surprisingly to me, didn't do much in the recent two big tourneys and Nadal is not at his best. Djoko may be knackered and might be hindered by Stupid Saturday.

Considering Murray's game hasn't gone forwards since his first GS final appearance which was 3 yrs back, it's obvious to anyone his chances for a slam are less than 50-50, and I am not usually a pessimist!

Even Roger and Nadal in this form would beat Murray in a slam, as they don't think (oh God we're in the final, I just hope I don't make a fool of myself.) Then what they do is put pressure on the other guy everytime they hit the ball, Andy gets too nervous and stops doing what he usually does in earlier rounds, hitting the ball clean and flat.

JM. I'd put them at 50-50. However I would agree with you that he needs to be mentally stronger when playing the top guys in GS semi's and finals. The way he capitulated after one mistake at Wimbledon agaist Nadal was definitely worrying.

Worrying? it was a bigger capitulation than Fukushima nuclear plant

Danny_1982 wrote:Agassi thinks he'll be a multi slam winner, Nadal has stated the same.

I'm not saying that Agassgi and Nadal are right or wrong, I'm just stating that unlike we people discussing tennis on a forum, its not easy for a player to answer such question when put straight to them. Nadal said that Murray can win a slam, Federer said that too I myself as well. But on these question they will have to answer diplomatically rather than what they might actually feel. They may really feel so, but just imagine if Nadal is asked "Do you think Ferrer will win a slam?" Or "What chances you think are for Monfils to win US open 2011?" or If Federer is asked "Do you think Fish now being #7 ranked player, #1 American, winning the USOpen series 2011 and having a great summer can actually win US Open 2011?" What you thing he will answer?

Of course they will say something like "yes he is good player. and playing decent matches, and has a decent chance of winning just like the other 127 playing the tournament."

How will he say "Not really. He just doesn't have it in him what it takes to win a slam and hence won't".

Now how many posters here actually think the Ferrer or Monfils or Fish will win US open 2011 or a slam in their entire career?

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

Simon Bollettieri has his amnd others equally well-placed to judge have theirs as can be seen from these:-

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/more-sport/2010/08/25/bjorn-to-be-king-115875-22511970/

http://www.eatsleepsport.com/tennis/mac-tips-murray-for-new-york-stardom-1270460.html

http://sport.scotsman.com/tennis/Sampras-tips-Murray-for-grand.5751098.jp

Craig... you forgot to include the opinions of 606v2 posters.

laverfan wrote:Craig... you forgot to include the opinions of 606v2 posters.

They are perhaps best left out as they always bring division. Those that feel Andy will win a slam are shouted down as being biased Murray fans (some are and some aren't) whilst those that say he has no chance are labelled anti-Murray (and again and some are some aren't). Only time will tell but one thing is sure - he has already had a superb career and no matter what happens from here no one can take that from him.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

laverfan wrote:Craig... you forgot to include the opinions of 606v2 posters.

They are perhaps best left out as they always bring division. Those that feel Andy will win a slam are shouted down as being biased Murray fans (some are and some aren't) whilst those that say he has no chance are labelled anti-Murray (and again and some are some aren't). Only time will tell but one thing is sure - he has already had a superb career and no matter what happens from here no one can take that from him.

Very well said.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
laverfan, I can't get what are you trying to imply here. In this statement Federer was more emphasizing on the slowness of courts these days. That sometimes in the second statement is just a general word indicating that at times he does play long rallies and break the opponents will down. I already stated that he can do it sometimes.

Apart from the slowness of courts, my intent was to point out Federer's willingness to 'grind' out wins. The AO 2009 against Berdych where he did grind out a win comes to mind. The 2008 AO Tipsarevic match was indicative of his recovery from Mononucleosis.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Are you suggesting that Federer too can play and predominantly does the game of running around, chasing all balls, retrieving even the most toughest shots, grinding out the points with long rallies just as much as Nadal, Murray and Djokovic do? These things can't be put in as clear black and white. No player plays a 100% offensive, aggressive game and no one with 100% only defensive and retrievals. But the playing style and strength is determined by what they go with first in their genral point-play, how often they do it.

No. I was suggesting that the decision to play a match depends on the opponent as well. I agree that matches are a mix of defense and offense. The percentage varies based on the player across the net.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Do you want to suggest that even Federer like Murray, Nadal, Djokovic has stamina and lungs to be able to grind and outlast the opponent? If he was he could at least have tried it once in those losses to Nadal at FO and other masters tournaments on clay.

Rome 2006 is (was?) indicative of his fitness. Lydian has provide links to Paganini's training schedule, which is a fascinating read.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:But he didn't. Why? Because he just can't stay with Nadal in that particular style of play. Nadal is miles ahead of Federer when it comes to grinding a win. Federer will always have to play the game he normally does i.e. be aggressive and go for winners. Because this is what he is comfortable at and it comes natural to him. See his win against an 'invincible' Djo at the FO 2011. It hardly looked like a clay court match. Even commentators were saying that level of shot-making in that match doesn't at all looks like it is being played on clay. He is so aggressive and attacking on most points even on clay which completely suite players with great strength, stamina, lung capacity to play long rallies, great retrieval skils.

There are shades of Tenez in your comment, but in general, physical fitness is an important building block. Gasquet is an example of a player lacking fitness when it matters the most. Monfils and Tsonga are similar.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Its not possible for players change their natural game. It can be altered a bit based on conditions and a player own capability to adapt to the changes, but he still predominantly will play what he/she is natural at. That why its call 'natural'.

Federer has always stated that he 'grew' up on European clay. Peter Carter also noted his abilities on clay at a very early age. His style, despite the clay pedigree, is very dissimilar to Nadal, Murray, et al. His early matches with Hewitt and Blake indicate some lack of energy, but he worked very hard to address his shortcomings very quickly.

Murray has to work too hard for too little, his forehand just isn't good enough and too much energy is expended inefficiently. Nadal (for instance) generates way more power with much less effort, over several sets efficiency wins out. Murray can use everything he's got to win a set but then he's spent.
Yes, he's got other shots and his serve is good, but they're nothing that's going to do real damage.

It occurs to me that it's probably no coincidence that Murray happens to be the one of the 'big four' that's constantly going through on-court pantomimes in which he enacts chastising himself for errors for the sake of pretending that REALLY he's too good to make them (and that by making them he's been a naughty silly boy who needs a good telling off). It's probably related to his style of play, as someone has said already, no-one want to be a counter-puncher type of player. It's something that evolves partly through not having outstanding offensive shots, which must be extraordinarily frustrating.