Andy Murray - Step Back In Time

First topic message reminder :

After 7 hours of tennis and reflection, I think that despite a valiant performance, Andy needs to really dumb his approach to improvement right down.

Look at the top guys:

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. They have that belief in their shots. They know what the strengths are in their shots. Technically they haven't done much over the years to improve their shots. Nadal has increased the power in his serve. Other than that, nothing drastic.

We come to Murray. Diets, improved fitness. I am not disputing Murray's attitude, because he is by far the most committed player on tour to tennis and area's he thinks needs improvement. Something that some of the other players outside the top 10 may need to take on board if they want to improve their rankings.

Murray needs to look at 2 areas. Second Serve and the Forehand. What we have is pace issue. There is no place in the game for someone to be dumping a 69mph second serve in a match. A Grand Slam Semi final is not the place. His FH he has shown in the Clay Court season can be hit with brute force, yet time and time again seems reluctant to do so when he really needs it.

Murray finds himself in a bit of hard place. Ranked 4 in the world and now 24 years of age and no Slam. Can he improve his ranking? Yes, but he needs a Slam as a starting point to do so. When you have been ranked 4 in the world for so long and yet have a game which seems so far from winning a Slam makes it all the more difficult to find motivation.

Murray needs to go back in time. Go back to the period of 2005-2007. Where improvement was drastic and it showed in performances and ranking. What was the mindset? What has changed in his belief from then to now? Playing players ranked higher than him by a considerable margin and winning, why can't the same mentality be adopted now? Andy needs that belief again. To be able to go into a match without doubt or fear. For me the Maclaghan years set him backwards. After his first Slam final in 2008 he worked more on his defences and 2009 was his worst year in terms of his tennis performances and was exploited by big and heavy hitters. He needs a coach to work with and take on board a fresh perspective of his current tennis. I have no doubt he has all the abilities, just a case of finding the formula to get them all working together in harmony at once.

Seriously i just think its mental for Murray and nothing more. He has the game to beat all of these guys on his day, but he gets wrapped up in negativity.

For example the Djoko final this year at Aus. TO me he had the best of the first set, but somehow lost it, then binned the second set by scalding himself and all of a sudden hes 2-0 down and he has to win 3 in a row. The year before Vs Fed it wasn't that bad as he generally improved during the match and had he managed one of the those 4 set points i think he may have got through Fed that year.

Wimbledon French and USO this year vs Nadal he played better than the Wimbledon the year before imo and at time had the better of Nadal. However at the USO he was negative, not in his game, but in himself. I believe he could have got the crowd on his side vs. Nadal and got back into the match, but even when he took the break in the 3rd there wasn't that spark of celebration you can see from him. One of his greatest mental performances was the Gasquet wimbledon match imo, i know Gasquet went 'pop', but he really interacted with the crowd and i think thats key to Andy keeping himself on an even keel mentally.

I'd like to see him play Fed or Djoko in a slam Semi (Djoko now), as it been something like 12/13 times in HC slams that hes been paired with Nadal. I think he has a much better chance vs the other two in a semi rather than a final

legendkillar wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:"Murray needs to go back in time. Go back to the period of 2005-2007. Where improvement was drastic and it showed in performances and ranking. What was the mindset? What has changed in his belief from then to now?"

You mean go back to the time when he was maturing from 'boy to man'. I think andy might find it hard to go back and redevelop himself.

Ermmm I think you find I am suggesting re-capturing the mindset. A bit different then physical development.

Exactly, my facetious comment was directed at his vast improvement between 2005 and 2007 being mainly because he was maturing physically rather than vastly changing his game/ mindset.

I also think if Murray gets 'one' slam, he may go on a massive winning streak riding the confidence boost it gives him. I certainly think a lot of Djokovic's current run is to do with his mental belief

He's the Sergio Garcia of tennis. So much promise shown early and likely to finish with no major titles. Both came near but yet so far from winning a major title. Both have mental weakness and serious flaw in their game.

Tom_____ wrote:I also think if Murray gets 'one' slam, he may go on a massive winning streak riding the confidence boost it gives him. I certainly think a lot of Djokovic's current run is to do with his mental belief

I agree with all that, although I don't agree that Murray's problems are all mental. I don't believe that he is as athletic as the top 3, there is always something that looks a bit more forced and awkward about him to me.

barrystar wrote:
I thought Wimbledon was reasonably close - there was one forehand he failed to put away in the 2nd set which, if he had done, might have produced a very different result. His failure to do that brought about an almost immediate change in momentum between the two players. Perhaps it was just waiting to happen anyway, but I think that a whole lot turned on that particular moment - especially given that Murray had what is usually the all-important 1st set in the bank.

5-7 6-2 6-2 6-4

Once Nadal had warmed up it was exhibition tennis and Murray got whooped, dismantled. Whereas Murray edged the first set by the finest of margins. The momentum was never clearly with Murray but after the first set it was fully with Nadal.

Tom_____ wrote:I also think if Murray gets 'one' slam, he may go on a massive winning streak riding the confidence boost it gives him. I certainly think a lot of Djokovic's current run is to do with his mental belief

Tom: this is wishful thinking. djokovic has won his first slam at 21, his game is way above Murray's. Murray should focus at winning one, that would be an incredible accomplishment for him, although it's not entirely sure he will ever be able to do it.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:I also think if Murray gets 'one' slam, he may go on a massive winning streak riding the confidence boost it gives him. I certainly think a lot of Djokovic's current run is to do with his mental belief

Tom: this is wishful thinking. djokovic has won his first slam at 21, his game is way above Murray's. Murray should focus at winning one, that would be an incredible accomplishment for him, although it's not entirely sure he will ever be able to do it.

i agree jeremy

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:I also think if Murray gets 'one' slam, he may go on a massive winning streak riding the confidence boost it gives him. I certainly think a lot of Djokovic's current run is to do with his mental belief

Tom: this is wishful thinking. djokovic has won his first slam at 21, his game is way above Murray's. Murray should focus at winning one, that would be an incredible accomplishment for him, although it's not entirely sure he will ever be able to do it.

Djoko did have the advantage there of facing Tsonga in that first final, rather than one of the big two. He had to have a few attempts before getting back on top of himself and producing his current run - big gap between 2008 and 2011. My point is that Murray would have a great pressure relief if he ever does win one and that could only be posiitve for him

Tom_____ wrote:Djoko did have the advantage there of facing Tsonga in that first final

An advantage? Well Murray did not make he most of that advantage in that AO first round.

I think that's a fair point Tom.

To win their first slam, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic faced good players, not great players. Murray is extremely unlikely to get to a final and meet someone ranked below him. He is virtually certain to have to beat one of the fantastic players ranked above him.

But that should be a challenge to relish, rather than an excuse for why it didn't happen. It's not mission impossible, he has beaten all of these players in big finals, just not in slam finals.

Danny_1982 wrote:I think that's a fair point Tom.

To win their first slam, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic faced good players, not great players. Murray is extremely unlikely to get to a final and meet someone ranked below him. He is virtually certain to have to beat one of the fantastic players ranked above him.

But that should be a challenge to relish, rather than an excuse for why it didn't happen. It's not mission impossible, he has beaten all of these players in big finals, just not in slam finals.

Quite incorrect actually. To win their first slam, Djokovic and Nadal had to beat Federer in the semi finals, showing they could beat a great player at the time. Murray will have to do some thing better. Was he born earlier and played peak between early 2000s and 2007, he could have won a slam.

danny_1982 - Nadal had to beat Federer in the SF to win RG 2005, that took some doing I'd suggest, but I'd agree that Djoko had a Fed who was not 100% in Aus 2008, and Fed's stiffest challenge at Wimbledon 2003 was Roddick in the SF.

As far as Murray is concerned, as I see it something seems to have happened in the transition, or non-transition, between 2008 and 2009 - the former was his 'breakthrough' year with two TMS wins culminating in a Slam final appearance, to my mind the latter year involved stagnation almost. It was an improvement in terms of pure numbers of tournaments won, but a very odd year in slams - on one view he he was unlucky to have a virus at Aus 2009 and a wrist injury at USO 2009 and he did better on clay than ever before - on the other hand losing to Roddick in the Wimbledon SF must have really hurt (he made a meal of beating Wawrinka there too). His No. 2 ranking felt a wee bit hollow, and as an onlooker his momentum rather stalled in that year for him to confirm himself as an inconsistent player subsequently. It's disappointing that he has reacted quite so badly to slam final defeats at Aus in 2010 and 2011 (contrast Djoko after USO 2007). I hope he'll get a slam, I still think it's more likely that he will than that he won't and that if he gets one he won't stop there, but quite a lot may have to fall into place for him to get that first one.

I was talking specifically about finals, which is where he has really collapsed mentally.

I wasn't saying those players didn't beat anyone of calibre to get to their final, I was merely poining out that in the final they were greeted with good players rather than great players, which is a luxury Murray probably won't get.

Tom_____ wrote:Seriously i just think its mental for Murray and nothing more. He has the game to beat all of these guys on his day, but he gets wrapped up in negativity.

What you mean by mental? Do you want to suggest that Murray is mentally ill who just can't bring up his game when he must? I think its quite contrary, Murray is the most tactical brainy player among all top players right now. Murray fans want to bring up this "mental" thing as something very trivial which can be worked upon very easily and then Murray reaches the top defeating everyone and dominating the game. The reality is getting over the mental problems is far more difficult than anything else. And about beating the likes of Fed, Nadal, Djo 'on his day", any player 'on his day' can beat anyone. Didn't Donald young beat Murray is straight sets, but lost poorly in US open against him? Didn't Ivan Dodig beat Nadal being a set and break down in Montreal? Young and Dodig are not someone one can expect to beat the likes of Murray and Nadal, but they did because of this 'on his day'. On rare occasions where everything works for a player doesn't mean they are good enough to beat them.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:Seriously i just think its mental for Murray and nothing more. He has the game to beat all of these guys on his day, but he gets wrapped up in negativity.

What you mean by mental? Do you want to suggest that Murray is mentally ill who just can't bring up his game when he must? I think its quite contrary, Murray is the most tactical brainy player among all top players right now. Murray fans want to bring up this "mental" thing as something very trivial which can be worked upon very easily and then Murray reaches the top defeating everyone and dominating the game. The reality is getting over the mental problems is far more difficult than anything else. And about beating the likes of Fed, Nadal, Djo 'on his day", any player 'on his day' can beat anyone. Didn't Donald young beat Murray is straight sets, but lost poorly in US open against him? Didn't Ivan Dodig beat Nadal being a set and break down in Montreal? Young and Dodig are not someone one can expect to beat the likes of Murray and Nadal, but they did because of this 'on his day'. On rare occasions where everything works for a player doesn't mean they are good enough to beat them.

Being brainy doesn't make you mentally strong for crying out loud!! Look at the historical genuis's who have suffered mental illness's Van Gogh was Bipolar and John Nash was a Schizophrenic! Jimmy white never won a World Championship in snooker and was regarded as one of the best the game had seen.

I am not saying that Murray is mentally ill, sometimes you may be really good at something but it doesn't mean you can execute it to perfection because of mental breaks or fatigue or simply lack of belief in one's self.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:Seriously i just think its mental for Murray and nothing more. He has the game to beat all of these guys on his day, but he gets wrapped up in negativity.

What you mean by mental? Do you want to suggest that Murray is mentally ill who just can't bring up his game when he must? I think its quite contrary, Murray is the most tactical brainy player among all top players right now. Murray fans want to bring up this "mental" thing as something very trivial which can be worked upon very easily and then Murray reaches the top defeating everyone and dominating the game. The reality is getting over the mental problems is far more difficult than anything else. And about beating the likes of Fed, Nadal, Djo 'on his day", any player 'on his day' can beat anyone. Didn't Donald young beat Murray is straight sets, but lost poorly in US open against him? Didn't Ivan Dodig beat Nadal being a set and break down in Montreal? Young and Dodig are not someone one can expect to beat the likes of Murray and Nadal, but they did because of this 'on his day'. On rare occasions where everything works for a player doesn't mean they are good enough to beat them.

It is pretty clear that Andy's mental state of mind is a big handicap to him during matches when he beats himself up so much when he is unhappy with shots he has played, decisions he has made and that plays on his mind unlike the big three. It is also evident that against those big three (perhaps he is in awe) he is overly cautious but when he plays his aggressive game against them he is a match for them. Now my belief is that as soon as he grasps that he must ALWAYS be aggressive against the big three then those mental torments will go out of his game as he'll be playing a more rounded game that won't torment his mind.

The other day (when it was pouring with rain in Flushing Meadows) sky were showing the 2008 semi between Rafa and Andy. The difference in attitude with Andy was marked as was the variety of his game. I actually stopped watching this year's semi, not because I was disappointed with Fed !, but because I watched Murray do the bit where he shuffles his feet and flings back his head and swears, like some disaffected teenager, after losing a point in the third game and just knew he was going down - my surprise was that it took 4 sets.

Murray was superb against Rafa in 2008, and sublime against him at AO 2010 - and no, I don't buy Rafa being injured in 2010 at all given the year he went on to have and the way he was moving in that quarter final. Murray then did to Rafa what Nole has been doing - he had him on full stretch all the time, especially at AO.

If you ask me what one of the most destructive things about Murray's attitude has been is his blind hero worship of Rafa and his game. Now of course Rafa is one of the greatest ever, but it is his game and not Murray's and while it is the right one for Rafa to play, Murray should believe in his own game more, but I wonder if he has forgotten what that was sometimes. In 2008, Murray had his own game and looked like it was only a matter of time before he pocketed that slam, but instead he is looking increasingly lost and has mislaid some of that wonderful fluent play in his belief that he needs to emulate Rafa's game as well as his fitness.

We've all said it - but Andy please lose some of the fitness guys (just how many do you need?) and get a really good coach who believes in your natural game and helps you to hone that, not a poor imitation of someone elses!

time please,

Yes I rewatched that 2008 semi as well. Now one thing was clear was how aggressive a game he played. It was forced somewhat as on that day rtain was forecast and Andy wanted to shorten the points/match as much as he could to avoid being forced to come back the next day (which eventually happened). However, that forced aggression gives his game a whole different level and sadly, for some reason, is a level he doesn't aim for all the time. If he does that he can still win a slam if not then I'd say he'll end up slamless.

Now slams are prestigious and most sought after tournaments but does it change where Murray will end up being seen in people's eyes? I think not. By this I mean there are many one slam winners out there who I say are not in the same class as Murray as all facts and stats point out. Some slam winners did just that - win a slam but never reached another single slam semi and perhaps won about five ATP titles. In my eyes and many others that doesn't make them better than Andy at all. That is why I will sit back and enjoy the rest of Andy's career however it pans out.

Hmm Murray said again that he has to be 'physically stronger and work on his game'... no Murray you have to get your head right and stop complaining about every point that goes the opposite way sonny, humbleness is more fruitful than your arrogance. The aim of the game is to put your opponent under constant pressure, not to try play tiring defensive tennis for 3 hours you complete muppet..

Oh I agree Craig, Andy is a wonderful player who has had a very, very successful career - no doubt about that at all. 5, or is it 6 Masters titles now and a tremendous year's showing in the majors with 3 semis and 1 final.

Maybe that is the pinnacle of what he is able to achieve, but you've just got to believe when you watch AO 2010 again that as long as Andy finds HIS game and manages that 'poker face', he could just scoop that elusive major.

Perhaps he doesn't want it so badly that he is prepared to make some changes? But if he does, he needs to be man enough to work with someone who will not be afraid to pull their punches.

I think, voluntarily or not, Murray made a career choice when he decided to dump Gilbert and, afterward, hire Maclagan.

In the beginning of his career he was a much more offensive player, who was constantly seeking to move forward into the court, to find the angles and use and abuse the drop shots.

Instead he developed in a solid, defensive player who is able outlast and counter-punch most of others thanks to his extraordinary physical condition and hard work in the training sessions.

Now which game style would have fared better for him, it is difficult to say. He has had already an extraordinary career based on consistency and hard work. Had he chosen to specialise in a riskier, more attacking game style, it's unlikely he would have achieved such level of consistency in term of results, but probably it’s more likely that, on his day, he would have been able to put up a greater challenge to the top guys and maybe sneak one slam, just like Korda did.

Murray is an immensely talented and skilled player, I just feel he doesn't know what to do with his talent, it doesn't seem to have a direction. I do hope he finds it.

Pomar wrote:Murray is an immensely talented and skilled player, I just feel he doesn't know what to do with his talent, it doesn't seem to have a direction. I do hope he finds it.

If this was supposed to be funny, it was indeed . You are the most unusual Murray fan.

" Andy Murray - Step Back In Time"

To a glorious opportunity of winning a slam in the early millenium era between 2001 and 2003 when Sampras was all but finished as a slam contender on all the surfaces, Federer had yet to start dominating the game, a certain moonballing Spaniard had still to reach the top tier of men's tennis, and Tim Henman was still Britain's number 1 tennis player.