will Murray change?

Now with the major part of the season over and the slams duly allocated we've seen Murray achieve his best ever record at grand slams in a year. However, as some have pointed out, he still looks further away from that first title than ever before. For example after US open 2008 I'll bet people were more sure of him winning one than not. Its been said that he just needs to improve his second serve and forehand and then he'd be sorted yet if it was that simple surely this would have been addressed. Another point of view is that he needs to toughen up mentally and improve his on court demeanour as he's seen to give away too much to the opponent.

My question is how much of this do you think Murray is aware of and what if anything can you see him changing? I personally don't make too much of how he comes across on court because unlike the commentators I don't think we can truly know anothers mind just by observing like that. I guess that bit comes down to philosophy and people making a bigger or lesser deal of what might be the same pain. What I do wonder though is how much in control mentally he is which I think is better represented by his play as at times he appears to give up to soon (referring to AO 2011 final in particular here). He's said before that he doesn't believe in sports psychology contrary to Djokovic's belief that tennis is very much a mental sport. Can you see this being his undoing in the long run and possibly the reason he doesn't win a slam?

Yes, he will rule the world sometime in future.

Lendl and Agassi were like this before they started winning majors.

I'm not sure how Lendl turned it around but I think Agassi had help with the psychological side of the game. I guess I could settle for Murray having a career like Agassi's

He's too gangly. He's all hands but the various bits of his body don't look like they're happily synchronized, i.e. he's just not that good an athlete. Maybe the cause is mental tightness, a fear of letting go etc. cliche etc.. Could be. Maybe there's a more relaxed, more fluid, more naturally powerful Andy Murray that's been prevented from showing itself for psychological reasons. Or maybe he's just not that good an athlete and he'll always be trying too hard for too little result.

I reckon Murray will become as good a player as Lendl. As charismatic too.

Big difference between Lendl and Murray. Lendl was an attacking player going for his shots....lines rather. Again, he was emotional and and quickly after a few rallies was losing his edge and ended up losing matches he could have won if fitter. He therefore worked hard to allow him to play his attacking tennis. In a way very similar to what Federer did in 2003. By working hard Lendl gave himself the chance to apply his talent.

Murray bet on his physique first probably because his talent was not up there with the very best players.

Interesting, this athleticism or lack of is a new development. I think socal said he doesn't think he gets enough rotation into his forehand. Do you think this just plays up in his big matches or he's like that all the time? I think he's got great movement and speed around the court for someone taller than average. Del Potro's even more gangly to the point where it can be exploited by his opponent but he's still succeeded at the highest level.

Del Potro has got the massive forehand.

Murray needs a lethal weapon to close points.

Murray makes up for the lack of a massive forehand with his movement and variety of shots.

There is hope. Martina Hingis won several titles with a nice all-round game.

Leff wrote:There is hope. Martina Hingis won several titles with a nice all-round game.

Not after the Williams sisters and all the other big baseline biffers got going though. She couldn't compete when every other player was a 7ft tall ballbashing beast.

Yep. Murray's only window for winning a slam was in 1997 on the women's tour.

The big difference between Lendl and Murray is that lendl had both a big first serve and a great forehand, can't really say the same about murray.

On the subject of sports psychologists, did anyone see that Sam Stosur had used Ruth Anderson from Australian Institute of Sport and credits her with helping turn around the negativity after losing RG 2010 and going out 1st round at W next year.

Wish Andy would at least consider someone like this - maybe he doesn't have an absolute killer shot like the others in top 3, but he seemed to be much better tactically, or more confident tactically a few years ago and that is what is needed for him to play fully to HIS strengths.

He doesn't need to change... the guy is already a massive success with his 7!! yes seven masters titles!! Shanghai and Cincinnatti are as well known and important as the AO and USO remember...

time please wrote:On the subject of sports psychologists, did anyone see that Sam Stosur had used Ruth Anderson from Australian Institute of Sport and credits her with helping turn around the negativity after losing RG 2010 and going out 1st round at W next year.

Most often, Andy loses to better players. He is not the self-destructive type. He needs to be decisive during key moments when playing against the top three guys.

Once Mr. Lendl broke his habit of losing in the SF and F, his new-found confidence helped him win several majors.

I reckon Andy will win majors and it will happen in the next couple of years.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Interesting, this athleticism or lack of is a new development. I think socal said he doesn't think he gets enough rotation into his forehand. Do you think this just plays up in his big matches or he's like that all the time? I think he's got great movement and speed around the court for someone taller than average. Del Potro's even more gangly to the point where it can be exploited by his opponent but he's still succeeded at the highest level.

Yes, break in, for me the murray forehand is not technically as good a shot as it could. He doesn't seem to get into a closed enough stance and use enough leg drive and body rotation in the shot. This means that he doesn't get the proper torque on the ball. His forehand for me is too much arm and upper body and not enough legs and back. When he tries to flatten it out it either comes off just right or he hits an error. If he hits with spin it is too floaty. He doesn't have the combination pace and spin of lets say Novak or fed or even Nadal. He can either hit it spinny and floating or flat and hard. When he is hitting it well he does get sideways and in a closed stance but often when goes off boil he is just arming that particular shot.

Has any player ever "changed" past the age of 20, 21? By that I mean big change like a forehand, a serve or a style of play (not minor "tweaks"). Players today have been playing since they were 3 or 4. I'm not sure its possable. To attempt it would also be quite risky for any successful player as it could damage the style that has lead to their success.

Biggest change I ever saw was Michael Chang's serve...
Murray can improve his 2nd serve for sure but most of the changes needed are in his head...however, the simple fact is that at slam level he's not at the same level as the top 3. These are the cold, hard facts....he's just not as good as them, the slams results speak for themselves and Murray isnt a potential talent anymore, he's now in his prime years.

I have seen players add volley into their arsenal out of necessity. Of course, not completely change shot-making technique.

Aspects of the game that could be acquired after age 21 or even after 25 include mental aggressiveness and tactical changes (pouncing on the opponent's weaknesses).

I would imagine its harder to become more aggresive tactically with age than it is to learn to play within the percentages. As in life its youth that takes the risks. The older people get the more conservative they tend to become...

I've heard that Federer only became as successful as he is when he toned down his aggresive play a little. Now that I think about it maybe that has something to do with his comments about a certain Djokovic shot...

droogle wrote:Yep. Murray's only window for winning a slam was in 1997 on the women's tour.

Oh you are Sooooooooooooo funnnyyy - NOT

He doesn't fly into his forehand hard enough, far too passive and will hopefully have a few early round losses getting him down to his real ranking, i.e 20 odd!

yummymummy wrote:

droogle wrote:Yep. Murray's only window for winning a slam was in 1997 on the women's tour.

Oh you are Sooooooooooooo funnnyyy

Thanks.

Maybe get the black widow (& queen of 1997) to coach and manage Murray.

Agree with Droogle in that he's not a very good athlete. That's not to say he isn't exceptionally fit though. His movement is too forced and not natural or flowing enough.

Super D Boon wrote:Agree with Droogle in that he's not a very good athlete. That's not to say he isn't exceptionally fit though. His movement is too forced and not natural or flowing enough.

I am afraid that's true! It feels like someone plugged in 2 legs that belonged to someone else.

I am pretty sure that Murray and Jamie, his brother, woudl have been of the same frame had they not followed such different training regime. One belongs to the 1990s era and the other well ..very much a modern player.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I'm not sure how Lendl turned it around but I think Agassi had help with the psychological side of the game. I guess I could settle for Murray having a career like Agassi's

Ivan was in serious trouble until he got that 1984 French, and that was an incredible turnaround. For a time it looked like he would lose to Wilander on slower surfaces and McEnroe on fast.

What helped him was that he upped his fitness (sound familiar?) and McEnroe imploded. That said, his 1984 French was a highlight for me, even though now with hindsight I think it was a great shame McEnroe didn't convert his seemingly impregnible position in that match as it would have secured his 1984 as untouchable. It's the best ever year even with that loss, and it winds me up when I read about other players being elevated above him when there's hardly anyone able to lace his boots for talent and achievement.

Leff wrote:I reckon Murray will become as good a player as Lendl. As charismatic too.

No chance. Andys going to make 7 USO finals in a row? Win some French? Not in this lifetime.

bogbrush wrote:

Leff wrote:I reckon Murray will become as good a player as Lendl. As charismatic too.

No chance. Andys going to make 7 USO finals in a row? Win some French? Not in this lifetime.

7 Cincinnatti finals in a row, perhaps!

bogbrush wrote:

Leff wrote:I reckon Murray will become as good a player as Lendl. As charismatic too.

No chance. Andys going to make 7 USO finals in a row? Win some French? Not in this lifetime.

Wasn't that sarcasm from Leff?

Leff wrote:Yes, he will rule the world sometime in future.

Lendl and Agassi were like this before they started winning majors.

Er, Agassi won a slam at 22 yo! (Wimb, 92)

hawkeye wrote:Has any player ever "changed" past the age of 20, 21? By that I mean big change like a forehand, a serve or a style of play (not minor "tweaks"). Players today have been playing since they were 3 or 4. I'm not sure its possable. To attempt it would also be quite risky for any successful player as it could damage the style that has lead to their success.

Why of course both Novak and Nadal have grown a great deal since their early 20s. Novak's forehand is completely different it is much more western and much heavier in terms of spin. Novak circa 2006 and 07 had a very flat forehand. Plus his volleys were attrocious up until 2 years ago, he isn't the second coming of edberg but he is a decent and competent volleyer. He also tried changing his serve ala martin and that went into a tailspin for 2 years and then he went back to the old motion.

hawkeye wrote:Has any player ever "changed" past the age of 20, 21? By that I mean big change like a forehand, a serve or a style of play (not minor "tweaks"). Players today have been playing since they were 3 or 4. I'm not sure its possable. To attempt it would also be quite risky for any successful player as it could damage the style that has lead to their success.

Well where you stand on a court is very much dependant on your natural skills and that will define your style and game plan for your career. So in effect it's almost impossible to change your style at 16 let alone at 20. Look at Gasquet. great BH but cannot hit his shots as early as Federer without cutting his UEs. Therefore he has stay to further back.

Look at Roddick. He knows what to do to beat Federer but again he hasn't got the natural skills to do it. He is simply a step behind as soon as the ball is in play.

Will Nadal be able to take the ball earlier and dictate? Frankly, if he could he woud have done it. This is how he himself explains Djoko's success (and Davydenko I presume too):" He takes the ball early."

No doubt that if Nadal could he would have done a long time ago. But again look at how far back he stands on returning serves. Really bad. he can consider himself lucky to have the power to compensate for that late hitting of the ball.