Andy Murray

Morning guys,

After the fallout of yesterdays match I just wanted to gain your thoughts about Andy on this thread.

It was an amazing comeback and he shows time and again that he has the great shots in his locker. But why does he make hard work of it?
And I would like to keep this thread as sensible as possible please, no unnecessary 'player bashing'.

I don't know whether it's technique or mentality. I lean toward technique but I'm not a coach. He seems to come up off the forehand terribly.

The other problem is that he can make unforced errors while not going for winners. At least if Federer makes u/es, he's getting something in the plus column because he's doing so trying to wiun rallies.

I don't like the self-flagellation but I suspect it's not really the issue.

My thoughts on Andy Murray are locked safely in an untresspassable file;

enjoy.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnNaPInkOhU

I think he could certainly do with a sports psychologist like Bob Rotella to give him the edge that his undoubted talent deserves. He appears to dwell on bad shots too much when he really should be laughing them off and getting on with it.

Murray is a somewhat enigmatic personality. Depending on the day, you never know if he will show up as one of the most solid player on tour, the one seen dismantling the Nadal's game in the USO, or Djokovic's and Federer's in other occasions. Or if his "impostor" play on his behalf: an insecure, enraged player who struggles in the serve and FH departments.
My view is that there is a psychological issue at the bottom of it: as soon as Murray loses his confidence, this immediately affects the areas where he is less secure, that are the serve and FH.

Two ways of looking at it for me;

a) He played badly against a player he should be beating in straight sets and Haase fell apart physically and mentally. He will need to up his game if he wants to get through the the latter stages.

or

b) If Nadal or Federer had come back from two sets down, against a big hitter playing some good stuff, everyone would be lauding their mental strength.

For me it's a little bit of a and a little bit of b.

b) If Nadal or Federer had come back from two sets down, against a big hitter playing some good stuff, everyone would be lauding their mental strength.

i'd have to say the other guy had a mental breakdown than the winner having mental strength...

Murray at his best beats anyone, but Murray at his worst can lose to anyone with a bit of power. I don't know, I like Murray so its hard to be objective.

I think back to Nadal at the French this year in the opening round, or Federer against Tommy Haas when he won the french... Top players have these days. The issue is, Murray's way out in these matches is to out run his opponent and show he's the fitter man.

That's all well and good, but how much energy would he have left if he reached the semi or the final? His talent is not in question, but the amount of energy he expends in getting to the latter stages of slams has to be questioned.

Look at his record in masters finals, he's won all but one of the finals he's reached... Yet in slam finals, no energy left.

Sorry guys but until he sorts out this "inner demon" problem he's going to be known as no-slam Andy.

He has the game but time and again on a big stage he looks more like a spoilt petulant brat. Someone really needs to come in and sort out the mental side of his game.

Y I Man wrote:Morning guys,

After the fallout of yesterdays match I just wanted to gain your thoughts about Andy on this thread.

It was an amazing comeback and he shows time and again that he has the great shots in his locker. But why does he make hard work of it?
And I would like to keep this thread as sensible as possible please, no unnecessary 'player bashing'.

The following is what is no unnecessary bashing, just bringing out how the match was yesterday from what I see as an impartial tennis fan who loves watching great play.

Another match where Murray did what he is best at i.e. 'pushing his way to victory'. Amazing comeback?? Sure it was a comeback being 0-2 sets down but there was nothing amazing about it. The match was almost what I had expected it would. Murray didn't do anything great, he just stayed his ground long enough to outlasted the opponent who was struggling with his fitness. You say Andy has great shots in his locker. If he did why couldn't he bring it out in the first 2 sets and the beginning of the second? What happened, he couldn't find the keys to his locker of shots? Why he had to wait till Haase started struggling physically and then Andy brought all his mighty array of shots. Andy Murray fans kindly answer this because I put lot of question and no Murray fan ever answers them. Why couldn't Murray play well until Hasse's injuries started severely affecting his game. Can you deny that Murray just outlasted him due to his superior strength and stamina and nothing else. Why did Murray again struggled in the 5th set when he was 4-0 up and Haase tried to make little comeback with whatever little was left in him? What happened then??

Murray did what a 'pusher' would normally do. wait-for-errors and outlast the opponent in stamina. No wonder he did hamper so much on "I want to be strong like Nadal". Fitness, strength stamina and lung capacity is only what can win matches for such players who lack weapons.

Hasse was not a 100% and was unable to keep his level of play. Haase had knee surgery done recently and has had knee problems hurting a major part of his career. And this day it was back problems as well. Murray struggled to win against a 70% Haase and here we have fanboys celebrating it calling it an "amazing comeback". Sure you can celebrate the win as Murray did win it. But a fully fit Hasse would have shown him the door just like Stan Wawrinka did last year. Yes it was a win, but nothing like some tabloids are calling as "thrilling". Thrilling??? This was an ugly win which will be in a large percentage of matches of player whose playing style earlier made him what was called a pusher but his fans like to use the word 'counter puncher'. But again what is ugly is a matter of personal choice. But for me this was one example of typical ugly win from a pusher who just won because he was superior in strength and stamina.

You also want to use the word "mental strength"?? Not even close. Mentally tough and strong players are mentally tough and strong from the beginning of the match. Not like when the opponent start struggling in fitness.

He only just scraped it and had some luck in that final game. Luck which he fist-pumped (in the manner of a school boy. Though I missed the earlier part of the match, perhaps that was to do with the crowd backing Hasse?).

Crap tennis.

raiders you said everything that I'd wanted to say but was too lazy to type out.

There is such a thing as "winning ugly" as his former coach would put it. This wasn't even that. He somehow crawled over the finishing line against - as you rightly say - an opponent who would have shown him the exit door if he'd been 100% fit.

No player bashing? Don't need to - Andy does it time and again to himself.

lol guys.

All you keyboard commandos with you PC's and Play Stations could have done much better I'm sure!

Good comeback and with a 5-0 h2h against your next opponent it shouldn't be a problem.

Haase wacked a backhand return into the crowd in frustration in the fourth set, it was done on purpose too. Amazing to see that happen.

The worrying thing for Murray is that he was really outplayed for long periods. Haase fell apart both physically and mentally but for the first two sets was the better player. Also when 4-0 down in the fifth he was able to reel off four straight games. That would never have happened to Djokovic or Nadal.

I don't think Murray beats anyone at his best. His best isn't as good as Djokovic's best or Nadals or even Federer.

He should deal with F Lopez ok in the next round, then Young or Chela shouldn't pose any problems. But, he will need to play better than yesterday to beat Del Potro (provided Del Potro's fitness holds up)

sportslover wrote:lol guys.

All you keyboard commandos with you PC's and Play Stations could have done much better I'm sure!

Good comeback and with a 5-0 h2h against your next opponent it shouldn't be a problem.

sportslover fail to share your assumption that just because he's beaten Lopez before he'll easily do so again.
Good comeback? Apart from in his dreams I bet even Andy doesn't delude himself with that thought.

Anyone who thinks Murray doesn't have great shots in his locker must be watching a different sport to me. His first serve is a bomb, his backhand up the line and cross court is as good as anyone's, his forehand can be a weapon when he leans into it... Sure, he had a day yesterday where he couldn't consistently rely on any of them, but how does that make him different from any other player?

Has no other top player ever struggled in the early rounds of a slam?

I get that some people don't like him, that is there choice. But nobody beats the top 3 players as many times as Murray has in his career without having any big shots. It's not possible!

My concern is that he wasn't at it from the start, forcing him into a position where he felt he had to outlast his opponent. It got the job done, but if he has to do that kind of thing once or twice more I would again question if he'd have the required energy levels at the business end.

I completely disagree that he doesn't have the shots, talent, ability or however you want to put it... His approach can be questioned, tactically and mentally, but not what he can do.

Nadal US open semi final 2008, Nadal Australian open quarter final 2010, Federer and Nadal Toronto last year... 4 examples off the top off my head of Murray beating top players in big matches with controlled aggression rather than being a 'pusher'.

As always on these kind of forums, people completely lose any objectivity when talking about a player they just don't like.

sportslover wrote:lol guys.

All you keyboard commandos with you PC's and Play Stations could have done much better I'm sure!

Good comeback and with a 5-0 h2h against your next opponent it shouldn't be a problem.

yea sure, Murray played fantastic to get himself 2-0 down, and losing a 4-0 lead in that last showed his mental strength...

Danny criticizing a player's performance isn't the same as just saying you don't like them.

Personally if Andy beats Djokovic (or whoever) to win the slam or simply even comes up short playing to the best of his abilty I'll be the first in line to say well done but he has to rid himself of these "banana skin" type performances which happen all too often in slams for comfort.

You don't see any of the other so called "big 4" time and again put in performances like this one.

Danny_1982 wrote:Anyone who thinks Murray doesn't have great shots in his locker must be watching a different sport to me. His first serve is a bomb, his backhand up the line and cross court is as good as anyone's, his forehand can be a weapon when he leans into it... Sure, he had a day yesterday where he couldn't consistently rely on any of them, but how does that make him different from any other player?

.

For sure Murray has less shots than Haase and a number of other players behind him in the ranking. Said that I think Murray does have talent: he has great control and touch on the ball, he really move fast, his first serve is big although inconsistent.

newballs wrote:Danny criticizing a player's performance isn't the same as just saying you don't like them.

Personally if Andy beats Djokovic (or whoever) to win the slam or simply even comes up short playing to the best of his abilty I'll be the first in line to say well done but he has to rid himself of these "banana skin" type performances which happen all too often in slams for comfort.

You don't see any of the other so called "big 4" time and again put in performances like this one.

I agree with that. I think the majority of tennis fans wish that Murray could produce his best more consistently... But I put it to you... Do you believe he has no big shots in his locker as stated above, or do you believe that he just doesn't use them enough?

I can completely understand the questioning of his approach, consistency, tactics.... Even his attitude. But doesn't have the shots? That's what I'm taking exception to. I'm surely not the only one who has seen those dreamy backhands arrow down the line or cross court? Or that first serve race past someone, or him step in and rifle a forehand...

Does he decide to do it often enough? No... But "doesn't have the shots"... Come on!

Danny_1982 wrote:
I agree with that. I think the majority of tennis fans wish that Murray could produce his best more consistently... But I put it to you... Do you believe he has no big shots in his locker as stated above, or do you believe that he just doesn't use them enough?

This is almost laughable Danny. You seems to say as if its by choice that Andy doesn't bring out the 'mighty weapons' that he possess and can do it any moment he wants to. Why would any player who has great mighty shots would ever revert to not using them? What could be hindering him to do so? Answer this please.

Danny_1982 wrote:

I can completely understand the questioning of his approach, consistency, tactics.... Even his attitude. But doesn't have the shots? That's what I'm taking exception to. I'm surely not the only one who has seen those dreamy backhands arrow down the line or cross court? Or that first serve race past someone, or him step in and rifle a forehand...

There is no player on ATP circuit who just can't hit even a few great jaw dropping shots. Everyone does. Even carlos berlocq in the 1st round against Djo got some steamy winners. That doesn't mean he too posses great shots. Or do you think carlos berlocq also has great array of shot and might weapons?

Danny_1982 wrote: Does he decide to do it often enough? No... But "doesn't have the shots"... Come on!

Again you want to make it look like as if Andy by decision chooses not to play great shots. Why would he do that? Why would anyone want to play defensive when they will have great array of shots. Read my comment here on page 1 and ask yourself. It takes time in writing comments and I can't keep repeating it everywhere. So please..

https://www.606v2.com/t12399-bollettieri-thinks-murray-can-t-win-a-gs

I am not sure I agree with raiders that AM has to be a pusher - his victory over Fed in Shanghai last year was very full of great shot making and controlled aggressive play, however I do agree that he 'pushed' his way to victory last night and it does get frustrating to watch him just defending on the baseline and not taking the initiative when you know he has the ability to do so. I think he is far more aggressive when playing the top three because he knows that waiting for errors is not necessarily going to be good enough.

I wholeheartedly agree with those who call for a sports psychologist - I think to be given some 'coping strategies' when he starts to get tight would sort out his serve and forehand going walkabout.

Lastly, I think he needs to decide just how much he really, really wants a major and then he will make changes like the one suggested above.

Positives for me last night were his body language in the fifth and at the end. I don't like the celebration of unforced errors either, but what I did like was he finished the match looking like he had taken care of business rather than showing the weepy relief he did after coming through 5 sets at W in 2009.

There is no player on ATP circuit who just can't hit even a few great jaw dropping shots.

That is so true and one can sort the fans from the neutral spectators cause the fans only see the talent in their players, or certainly emphasised it no end.

Being a Murray fan I can't help but be disgusted by some of his play yesterday. Yes it is a result based sport, and he managed to scrap through. Haase missed a great opportunity to get the biggest result of his career to date.

Yes there 'could' be every chance he could put this performance behind him and go on to win the tournament, I know we as Murray fans would like to draw parallels from past performances at slams like this by Nadal or Federer, but they have done it time and time again whereas Murray hasn't which makes it more wishful thinking.

I just can't see why pundits are calling this a classic and actually labelling this a 'great comeback' Haase physically just had nothing left and I salute him for the attacking play. Murray should've gone more aggressive in the 2nd and didn't and only did when the player was knackered.

I have seen his post match conference and he says he needs to start matches like he did in the last 2 sets of that match. I am hoping he believes what he says and does it.
After seeing that yesterday I have great doubts he can win a Slam. Yes Lopez is up and he boasts a H2H of 5-0, but matches are not won on paper and Lopez has been playing some good stuff this year.

time please wrote:I am not sure I agree with raiders that AM has to be a pusher - his victory over Fed in Shanghai last year was very full of great shot making and controlled aggressive play

tp,
If you read most articles here and follow the comments, then you might remember that I have already acknowledged Murray's Shanghai win over Federer was for me his best win against Federer. That was for once a match where Andy just didn't let Federer any chance for a win.

But alas, that is just not Andy's normal level of play nor his natural style. That's why such performances from Murray only come once in a long time.

I agree legend, Lopez has been playing beautifully this year and Andy needs to be very, very careful indeed because Lopez will play an attacking game and come to the net.

He did say on court afterwards that he 'was trying to stay in the point' and that is a big improvement from the silly negative behaviour we have seen from him in the past.

If we are going to look at the match objectively, however, it is such a shame that Haase had nothing left physically - he deserved the match for his fearless, aggressive play in the first two sets. A great pity for the tour in general that he has had so many injuries to overcome.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

time please wrote:I am not sure I agree with raiders that AM has to be a pusher - his victory over Fed in Shanghai last year was very full of great shot making and controlled aggressive play

tp,
If you read most articles here and follow the comments, then you might remember that I have already acknowledged Murray's Shanghai win over Federer was for me his best win against Federer. That was for once a match where Andy just didn't let Federer any chance for a win.

But alas, that is just not Andy's normal level of play nor his natural style. That's why such performances from Murray only come once in a long time.

raiders - I was not criticising you, but just slightly disagreeing - that's a big difference I am sure that I did read your earlier comment about Shanghai but I had forgotten, so I was simply responding to your post here.

Even as a Murray fan, I agree with quite a bit of what you have posted, but I think he has shown that he is capable of so much, much more.

He has himself acknowledged that he needs to 'go after' the top players, so adopts a more aggressive approach against them. He should still go after it more in my opinion against the top guys, but he does attack them.

As for why he doesn't do that against all players earlier in slams? Well, he clearly believes he can get past them by being a wall, and the fact that he has reached the semis at least in all 3 slams would back that up.

However, whilst it works, it gives him 2 problems. 1 - he expends too much energy to get to the last 4, and consequently is never as fresh as his opponents in the semis or final. 2 - he then has to play the big boys with an aggressive game that he hasn't been playing for the previous 5 or 6 matches.

"Why would any player who has great mighty shots would ever revert to not using them? What could be hindering him to do so? Answer this please."

Because he believes he can beat everyone outside the top 3 playing the way he does, sitting back and putting balls in play, which in his head is less risky than 'going for it'. To be fair to him, it usually works... But affects him later on in my opinion.

Plenty of people have said he has all the shots but isn't aggressive enough and doesn't use them often enough. Ex slam winners and former pros have all said this, it's hardly a revolutionary theory. So I'm not sure it's 'laughable'.

You disagree, that's fine. But just because you disagree I'm not going to dismiss your opinion as laughable.

Thing is TP Lopez might have seen Haase punish the Murray 2nd serve and Lopez has more consistent FH than Haase and if Murray's serve goes wayward again, he could find himself in all sorts of trouble.

There is for me sympathy with Haase because some his shots were superb yesterday and I just feel it is a shame he couldn't last the distance. Goes to show that even sometimes the better tennis is never relfected in victories.

The positive side to this is that Murray can play better and if he increases his level of performance, he can do very well.

the Murray/Fed Shanghai win can be misleading. Federer didn;t play nearly as well in the final as in the semi. Federer that year cumulated a few losses in finals cause at 29, then, I believe he struggles recovering from the match before, especialy tough ones v Djoko (and they don;t have to be 3 setters). he certainly wasn;t limping but a clear difference in form from the routing he inflicted to Nole the day before.

time please wrote:
Even as a Murray fan, I agree with quite a bit of what you have posted, but I think he has shown that he is capable of so much, much more.

tp,
Thanks for coming up as a Murray fan and also a sensible tennis fan. Some time back I had it real hard discussing things with some 'die hard' Murray fans.
Lots of players show great talent and skill which can take them to great heights if only they can use the gift that they have. And this doesn't only remain in tennis but in your, mine and everyone's life too. But you see this is the difficult part. Doing justice to one's skill and talent and ability is not easy at all. In fact this in itself is a talent of worth more than everything else what a person possesses put all together i.e. being able to do what one is capable of. When someone does it, he/she becomes really above all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtRWdLkigCg

And looking at the hiligh of teh Shanghai match, there is lots of retrieving from Murray. He was offensive on some shots but in 4 out 5 rallies he is scrapping.

I am a huge Fed fan above all other players Tenez, and while I agree that he is past his prime, Murray played superbly in that final and deserved to win. I don't know that it is possible to speculate whether the result would have been different if Fed had been 2 years younger because Murray has a good record over Fed in Master's events. This is also the same year that Fed beat a prime Djokovic, Murray and Nadal at WTF so he was in pretty good form. However, Fed did cruise through WTF like days of old, until the 3 setter against Rafa. Nowadays I agree that a tough match before will take a little stuffing out of him that it wouldn't have done 3 years ago - I can't remember the Djokovic/Fed semi at Shanghai.

I will agree Fed didn't play brilliantly, but Fed himself has pointed out that in AM/RF encounters it is one player who drains the other's game and forces them to play badly. It does seem to be a feature of this match up, unlike a great many Fed/Nadal matches of the past or Fed/Novak encounters, so that supporters are always disappointed with the level of either Roger's or Andy's game. It is not a match up where it seems possible to see both at their best at the same time for some reason.

Legend, totally agree with your post - the locker room will have taken notice of Haase's tactics and how it threw Andy - Haase himself had probably learned a lot from watching Cilic and Wawrinka in the last 2 years at the Open - I sometimes wonder whether Andy realises the importance of sending down the message, but he has set such a store by fitness, which of course he needs to against the top players, but sometimes one feels at the expense of ignoring match strategy. Just because he can run and run for 5 sets doesn't mean he should be getting himself in the position where he has to.

Agree there are positives, and hope that he is moving on mentally very quickly from the match.

Tenez wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtRWdLkigCg

And looking at the hiligh of teh Shanghai match, there is lots of retrieving from Murray. He was offensive on some shots but in 4 out 5 rallies he is scrapping.

Haven't got time to watch this right now, but will look later. My memory of the match, and the immediate reaction at the time was that Fed was missing some lines, but that Murray was really taking it to him and forcing Fed to miss.

Will be interested to look later

time please wrote:I am a huge Fed fan above all other players Tenez, and while I agree that he is past his prime, Murray played superbly in that final and deserved to win.

Murray played well but Fed was clearly under par his previous day level. And if you watch the match again, you will see this AND you will see Murray sending lots of teasers and scrapping for most of it as in the link I posted.

Federer had lost in Montreal's final for the same reasons that year.

This is why he went for all guns blazing in London versus Djoko. He knew he could not afford a long match. He simply hasn't been able to sustain 2 tough matches in a row for a long while. The most obvious case was USO 09 final. The last TMS he won was Cincy10 when he had a bye (2 actually!!!) and pretty easy matches until the final. I also think this is why he did not try hard to win the pre US TMS this year.

Okay here is my take on Andy Murray.

He was rank rotten for the first two sets yesterday and even his returning was bad and it has been seen before in Andy's game. In my opinion, he has these mental blocks, abhorrations call it what you will in phases in matches that just seems to leave him inhibited so much so it is like he is trying to play in handcuffs. The danger signals seemed to switch something on and the handcuffs were off and he was totally uninhibited and flying through the games. I take the point from Andy's detractors that the other player was knackered but was he really? Obviously you never watched the shots he (Hasse) was playing in the fifth set and not those of a mentally-gone player. Remember Hasse is world No.41 and pushed Rafa Nadal to similarly five sets at Wimbledon last year wwhen Nadal went on to win the crown (here's hoping that is an omen). This shows he is NOT a mug but a player at his highest ranking of his career and came here on the back of a tournament win. However, Andy should still have done stacks better early doors.

Now these mental blocks are a big handicap and unless he addresses them they are likely to prevent him ever winning a slam. I refuse to buy into the anti-sentiments that Murray doesn't have the game/shots to win a slam as he has already gone as close as you can to winning one by being triple slam finalist in an era containing Federer and Nadal so that is some achievement in itself. I just say it is even more remarkable that he has achieved what he has with a game that needs improving by erasing mental blocks and improving second serve. Improve those aspects and I'd be more sure of him winning a slam. And before anyone says these blocks are chokes and bottling....nonsense as you need balls of steel to come back from 2-0 down in sets when playing badly.

I still have belief Andy will crack it and yes I know I'll be accused of bias which may be true but equally those dismissive of his chances it can be said their judgement also holds bias (from some) as they have a dislike of him. Therefore look neutrally for opinions and Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafa Nadal and other pros have belief in Andy winning a slam as do commentators and pundits and no these aren't all brain-washed by British media as I listened to commentary by US commentators broadcasting to the US last night and ex-pro Mal Washington was adamant Andy is too good a player not to win a slam as have others in the past.

Also watch that match again last night and gauge the crowd reaction during it. They were enthralled by the play and going crazy during the rallies and people say Andy is boring.

Haase had gone Craig, he was done in which was obvious when the camera zoomed in on his face - he summoned all his desire and his courage for the fifth, knowing it was do or die - thankfully Murray had woken up by then and was on danger alert!

Poor Haase has had two knee surgeries, and the knee fills (which is the typical thing for a dodgy knee to do under strain) - I think yesterday we saw from him what might have been if he had not been so unlucky with injuries.

Anyway, Andy came through and hopefully this will have woken him up big time!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

time please wrote:
Even as a Murray fan, I agree with quite a bit of what you have posted, but I think he has shown that he is capable of so much, much more.

tp,
Thanks for coming up as a Murray fan and also a sensible tennis fan. Some time back I had it real hard discussing things with some 'die hard' Murray fans.
Lots of players show great talent and skill which can take them to great heights if only they can use the gift that they have. And this doesn't only remain in tennis but in your, mine and everyone's life too. But you see this is the difficult part. Doing justice to one's skill and talent and ability is not easy at all. In fact this in itself is a talent of worth more than everything else what a person possesses put all together i.e. being able to do what one is capable of. When someone does it, he/she becomes really above all.

I agree - I think the challenge ahead for Murray is to harness all his skills and play the rest of this tournament with the desire and courage he has shown us at times. I wish he would cut down on his sizeable 'fitness squad' and employ a coach/sports psychologist who is not afraid to stand up to Andy and lay it on the line, a bit like MV reportedly did with Novak last year.

Well done to Haase for taking the first 2 sets, especially first where he had been 4-1 down in the TB and being a break up looked like the momentum had completely gone, but he clearly gave up and went to sleep the next 2 and a half sets, had Murray been playing an experienced pro he would be out without a whimper.

His clownish antics will have to be cut out if he wants to get to the quarters or further!

Bad day at the office for Andy. He will know he got a bit lucky in the end.

Didn't see the game, just the live stats.

I agree with those saying he needs a sports psychologist or at least someone to stand up to him to tell him some home truths.

A key statistic of yesterday's game was his first serve %. At 54% it's not nearly good enough and may account for the defensive tactics he has to employ so frequently. Subsequent mental pressure may then cause his FH to unwind.

I'm sure he will be better in his next match. Look for bad matches by the other top guys! I'm sure they will have some scares.

Danny, apologies about the 'laughable' comment, I shouldn't have said that.

Danny_1982 wrote:He has himself acknowledged that he needs to 'go after' the top players, so adopts a more aggressive approach against them. He should still go after it more in my opinion against the top guys, but he does attack them.

He has also said that he is comfortable playing the defensive style and it works for him and he not going to change it and he doesn't care what anyone says. The exact quote was once available on wikipedia where I read it some time back, not sure if it still is now.

Do you want to suggest that he can switch to aggressive approach at will?? He can be greatly aggressive against top 3 and play passive defensive game against others and be successful? Can't happen, never will. Didn't he try to be very aggressive aginst Nadal at wimbledon semis this year. He won the first set but what happened after that. Could he keep that level? No. And he lost. Didn't he try to be aggressive at the AO 2011 finals against Djo. But what happened? Too many unforced errors and a tame loss. Even on matches where you see him play aggressive do say that he was aggressive for the whole match. Not really. It was only on certain occasions.

Murray's natural style of play is defensive and thats why he is comfortable playing it and he can't change it no matter how much you, me, the whole world or he himself wants. He does try at times, i'll give him that but he just can't do it like some others can. Why?? Because it doesn't come natural to him. And I made enough points about how a defensive style , counter punching is mainly an evolutionary thing which a player only has to accept because he is unable to play other wise. What else will he do? If he can't play shots like some others can, so be it and fine. If he wants to win he will have to try to defend as far as one can, retrieve the most difficult shots, try to draw errors, build stamina to outlast an opponent etc etc. No one would want to be a defensive player given a choice. Clearly you didn't read my post from the links I gave. It was a good read. Anyways...

Danny_1982 wrote:

As for why he doesn't do that against all players earlier in slams? Well, he clearly believes he can get past them by being a wall, and the fact that he has reached the semis at least in all 3 slams would back that up.

However, whilst it works, it gives him 2 problems. 1 - he expends too much energy to get to the last 4, and consequently is never as fresh as his opponents in the semis or final. 2 - he then has to play the big boys with an aggressive game that he hasn't been playing for the previous 5 or 6 matches.

"Why would any player who has great mighty shots would ever revert to not using them? What could be hindering him to do so? Answer this please."

Because he believes he can beat everyone outside the top 3 playing the way he does, sitting back and putting balls in play, which in his head is less risky than 'going for it'. To be fair to him, it usually works... But affects him later on in my opinion.

You don't build a great case for Murray at all. Are you suggesting he such a moron he just can't get out of his 'belief' while the whole world has figured out the problem? You think he is a idiot living in his dreamland of beliefs and who still hasn't figured out what he should do that again and again he reverts to something that has failed for him. Of course Murray isn't that idiot. In fact I see him as the most tactical player in the ATP's present circuit.

Danny_1982 wrote:
Plenty of people have said he has all the shots but isn't aggressive enough and doesn't use them often enough. Ex slam winners and former pros have all said this, it's hardly a revolutionary theory. So I'm not sure it's 'laughable'.

Actually I never said as this being 'laughable'. I had said about the other point, but maybe I shouldn't have. We have already had discussions about the opinions and how would a player or a former player would react to questions like "Do you think Andy Murray can win a slam?" Now in those questions and replies, just replace the name Andy Murray with any player as you wish and that will still hold good. Why?? Because thats how answering diplomatically works.

On your last comment what about ex-pros talking about tournaments in general who tip Andy Murray and no not just British media items either so no bias. Likewise Mal Washington, an ex-pro commentating to a US audience on US TV said time and again yesterday during commentary that Andy is too good a player not to win a slam. So it is not just biased or being friendly views these views are spread throughout the tennis circle.

CC "too good a player not to win a slam"

The reality is - Del Potro apart- they've been divided up by the big three seemingly since time began. There seems to be this expectation that it'll be Andy's turn next but guess what? Del Potro never actually defended his title and might just have a say in deciding the destination of this one if the big three don't.

I'm not saying he can't or won't rather that the writing is on the wall for this opportunity if he doesn't sort himself out pronto.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Well done to Haase for taking the first 2 sets, especially first where he had been 4-1 down in the TB and being a break up looked like the momentum had completely gone, but he clearly gave up and went to sleep the next 2 and a half sets, had Murray been playing an experienced pro he would be out without a whimper.

His clownish antics will have to be cut out if he wants to get to the quarters or further!

I thought this was supposed to ba a NON-PLAYER BASHING THREAD

Madam you need to differentiate between "bashing" and common sense, if you look at my comments i've never exaggerated anything, now stop crying over spilt milk

WHAT spilt milk JM ?



Andy WON

_____







Seems like sour cream to me

CaledonianCraig wrote:On your last comment what about ex-pros talking about tournaments in general who tip Andy Murray and no not just British media items either so no bias. Likewise Mal Washington, an ex-pro commentating to a US audience on US TV said time and again yesterday during commentary that Andy is too good a player not to win a slam. So it is not just biased or being friendly views these views are spread throughout the tennis circle.

Bias??? I never accused anyone of being biased. I just said answering such questions are always done diplomatically which is different from what you assume as being biased or friendly. Even if these view are spread throughout the tennis circle as you say, so what?? There were no such views spread spread anywhere about Del potro when he won the US open 2009 beating both Nadal and Federer, but did that matter? Was there anything spread at this time last year that Djo in 2011 will start an amazing run of form and will dominate like he is doing now?? So if something that can happen when no spreading of anything any where, then it is just as likely that something that is even though spread throughout in tennis circle will never eventually result in reality.

Your views on me aside as you seem keen on personal attacks, your views/opinions on Andy Murray are your own views but how close to the mark are they that you feel he hasn't the ammo to win a slam yet has already been to slam finals? Something not quite adding up there.

You feel Andy won't win a slam that's fine no problem but others beg to differ and a lot of those are far better placed and qualified to judge than you. Now I am not sure what points you referred to of mine yesterday? Was it because I dared to criticise the 'great one' for his fist pumps and come on's on unforced errors? Was it because he clearly won points waiting for errors from Cilic a la Murray a trait you dislike? Sorry but if those were what bug you and others then that is tough. If people want to use these points to berate and cause them to rubbish Murray then it is only fair that other players receive the same fate is it not. If we are being fair here that is.

Like I say Murray may never win a slam and judging by views here I frankly don't care as I would still be here in a four or five years time defending him if he had ten slams from the likes of people harping on at why they don't rate him like we see today with Nadal so what is the point?

You carry on with your diatribes against Murray if it makes you feel better ut it won't stop me supporting Murray here or anywhere else and won't stop me from enjoying the rest of the tennis. And before seemingly picking me out to criticise at least I am not like other posters here who start threads to openly criticise and rip the great players of our game to bits and give credit where credit is due. My fault in people's eyes - I dare to support Andy Murray.

CC,

I haven't posted anything that you can say I'm keen on personal attacks. I'm always decent in all my responses without using any abusive language of any kind. Kindly bring out the quotes where I've put any personal attacks on you.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
but how close to the mark are they that you feel he hasn't the ammo to win a slam yet has already been to slam finals? Something not quite adding up there.

Didn't you see any of the 3 finals Andy has played in? You seriously want to say how close Andy was to winning a Slam?

You keep saying in a lot of your posts that reaching 3 finals in Nadal and Federer era in itself is very highly creditable. Yes it is, but not exactly as high as you want to put it. Did he have to get past either of Nadal or Federer in AO 2011. So for AO 2011, this doesn't hold right does it? But I think you were referring a general thing I suppose, so its fine.

CaledonianCraig wrote: You feel Andy won't win a slam that's fine no problem but others beg to differ and a lot of those are far better placed and qualified to judge than you.

judge ?? No one passed any judgement that you can say someone else was better qualified. The thing is you keep bringing quotes from players and former players, coaches etc. who have said that Andy may win a slam. Why do you have to keep doing it? You bring it as if you want to pile up it all and believe that as more and more people will 'say it', Murray's chances to win will increase. I said it before, no former player, coach or anyone here( old 606) said Delpotro will win his Usopen 2009 beating Nadal and Federer. But he did it. So piling up doesn't make much difference.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Now I am not sure what points you referred to of mine yesterday? Was it because I dared to criticise the 'great one' for his fist pumps and come on's on unforced errors? Was it because he clearly won points waiting for errors from Cilic a la Murray a trait you dislike? Sorry but if those were what bug you and others then that is tough. If people want to use these points to berate and cause them to rubbish Murray then it is only fair that other players receive the same fate is it not. If we are being fair here that is.

This is not what I can call fair, I can only call childish. Firstly you try to say that Andy doesn't do it. Then you say so what even if he does it. Then you keenly start looking for the moments where other players did it and bring an argument as "see there.. right there.. he does it too.. ". Now You can't become right by proving others wrong. So stop this please, it doesn't suite someone who is aged 42 (as you show in your profile).

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Like I say Murray may never win a slam and judging by views here I frankly don't care as I would still be here in a four or five years time defending him if he had ten slams from the likes of people harping on at why they don't rate him like we see today with Nadal so what is the point?

I think I've said it before too. Reply to every topic in discussion need not have be whole list of what a player has achieved. Rating a player, see there are many aspects on which a player is rated. If the aspect is Slam count, Nadal will and his highly rated. If it comes to stamina and strenght , Nadal will be highly rated. If it comes to winning a career slam, he will he highly rated. But if it comes to something else like aggressive playing style, he may not be as highly rated. So you see the things here. It all depends on what aspect is being discussed.The answer to every aspect can't be a whole list of career achievements a player has got. So the 'rating a player' by a neutral tennis fan will mostly be according to the aspect of discussion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
You carry on with your diatribes against Murray if it makes you feel better ut it won't stop me supporting Murray here or anywhere else and won't stop me from enjoying the rest of the tennis. And before seemingly picking me out to criticise at least I am not like other posters here who start threads to openly criticise and rip the great players of our game to bits and give credit where credit is due. My fault in people's eyes - I dare to support Andy Murray.

I exhibit not diatribes against Murray. Any time I say something I back it up with the reason why I say it. Kindly post comments when I've criticized you, I had to face numerous mud slings from Murray fans earlier but even then I had kept my composure. You dare support Murray, or any other player you wish. How does it change anything? I supported mark philippoussis after seeing his win over Agassi in wimby 2003. It didn't change anything, Federer won it .

Fair enough on the personal attacks and apologise for that.

On your other points:-

Reaching slam finals are as close as you can get to winning them is it not? Now I know he hasn't done himself justice in those Finals but even to get there is worthy of great credit. Mention the Aussie Open 2011 and is it his fault if he never played one of Federer, Nadal or Djokovic? He has beaten Nadal in slam semi before and Del Potro in earlier rounds and remember what we are asking of Murray is to beat two of the greatest players of all-time. A massive ask.

As for the opinions side - yes I would say people take differing views differently akin to if a doctor told me to stop eating so much I'd listen but if joe bloggs in the street with no qualifications to say so I'd be less likely to take the tip on board. As is the case here.

I am sorry if you find what I did as 'childish' but how so? I mean if others take great satisfaction and glee in admonishing Murray for his 'Come on' and fist pumps on unforced errors then surely those, many of whom are Federer fans who paint him as whiter than white, should have it pointed out that their man does the same. Now I don't see a problem with Fed or Murray doing it as all they are doing is pumping themselves up the match and nothing at all unsporting in it. Similarly, I pointed out when Fed won points by clinging on in rallies by his fingertips until Cilic missed (great points they were too) but for similar traits in Andy's game he gets slated for this. Unfair? I definitely think so. Also Cilic hit a netcord winner with no apology (nothing made of it here) but Murray got one V Hasse and an almighty fuss was made of it on another thread and that again smacks of double standards.

Yes I do see your point on strengths etc being rated in players but all we hear on the Murray front is negative stuff for a player that has reached three slam semis this year and three slam finals and yes Murray does have strengths such as generally seen as the best returner of serve in the world often overlooked.

Fair enough for the diatribes bit as well and apologise for that.

As I said above on Andy Murray he has these mental blocks/abhorrations during matches and it just greatly restricts his game and may forever prevent him winning a slam. It handicaps him to a great extent and has cost him defeats in matches he should have won and sets he should have won in the past. If he could sort that out then slam finals could very well become slam wins but who knows?