Could Murray win his first slam this year?

Where? Wimbledon or USO seem the places where it might happen.

Murray could do it at wimby or the USO. I think Murray will get 1-3 slams in his future. I am pretty enthusiastic about his future. He has a very good future. I don't know it will be this year that is why didn't vote. But I think it will happen in the two or three years for sure.

He will only get Wimbledon if he doesn't face Nadal or Federer, however he might finally get some balls to take the USO should his forehand be stronger.

I still think Murray will not win a slam, although he looks to have improved.
I'm just not sure whether the improvements will be enough. Look at what Djokovic had to do to win the ao, how deep physically and mentally he had to go. Murray has improved mentally but I still don't think he can dig that deep.

Hiring Lendl was a great choice. Murray already looked to have improved considerably at the AO.

i see andy winning around 3-4 slams if he keeps making progress under lendl

I think Murray will win either Wimbledon or USO this year.

The only way Murray will ever make a final at Wimbledon is as a commentator like Tim Henman..
I was very impressed with how well he played at the AO,Lendl is clearly the right coach for Murray but the truth is,correct me if Im wrong, that Murray hasnt beaten one of the 3 players ranked ahead of him in a grand slam since the 2010 AO
To win a major he will most likely have to go through 2 of them,while he can clearly beat any one of them at any point in time,I dont think he can beat 2 of them back to back in a best of 5 sets match
It would take a miracle for the draw to open up for him as those guys are so consistent,they are almost guaranteed semi finalists
Plus his window of opportunity is rapidly closing with the younger generation banging on the door.That could rule out the possibility of slipping a tittle in,in an in between era.But if Djokovic turn things around,I see no reason why Murray cant either,the real question is if he can do it.The one major problem is,his game lacks a killer shot,theres also a technical problem with his forehand,which is why it isnt lethal and if you dont have that killer shot or technique by the time you turn pro you probably never will.It will be virtually impossible to win a major against the current players who have that forehand to go deep in a 4th or 5th set final and its evident that he continually comes up short in his straight sets loses to the heavyweights in a slam final.He certainly wont win one with his tactical game of returning "junk" balls and waiting for his opponent to make an error

Veejay, good post. I think Murray does have a hitch in his forehand. He seems to not rotate his body as much and hit with a more open stance than most of the great forehands out their. Although I will say that he hit it more aggressively and with better results at the AO. However under extreme pressure the other top 3 guys have a more natural forehand than Murray. Andy's sort of lack of body rotation makes it so he has difficulty when gets aggressive on that forehand in not making a lot of errors.

Interested to see what you see as Murray's technical glitch on the forehand?


I don't know about players who once they become a pro not being able to improve an area of the game. I think Andre did it with his serve and later in his career had a much better serve than he did at the start of his career. I think you can make improvements, Novak's volleys are much stronger, earlier in his career they were awful, nowadays he seems to have worked into a competent although not exceptional volleyer. But I think it is tough to take shot you don't have and turn into into a world class weapon, but you can certainly solidify it and make it better.

By the way I still think Murray will get a grandslam, and I think this year is his best chance at either Wimby or the USO. I don't think he will all of sudden become a good enough clay courter to beat either Novak or Nadal or both over a forthnight at RG.

In short. No.

If anything I think his serving has been the achillies heel. I don't buy the technical glitch on the FH nonsense. Watch his semi against Novak and he was bossing him around the court with it.

The serve has concerned me because at pressure moments in big matches he cannot find a first serve. When he goes 0-30 down, you can almost sense a break will occur than him retrieve the situation. Similar story to his career in general of when he gets a break, he does not build on it and apply more pressure.

The Lendl effect will be one which will take time.

I wish I could understand the Murray mindset when he gets a break in an opponents game. It seems to me his body language is one of the hard work is done when infact it is after he gets a break.

Lendl needs to get him into a cold bully-like mindset when he has gained control of a match.

I voted for yes at Wimbledon.
I've just got the sneaky feeling he will do it.

Murray isn't a big hitter,if he was there would be evidence of it technique or no technique.He is an all round solid player,theres nothing specifically phenomenal about his game or a part of his game thats so strong it automatically exposes his weaknesses.Apart from his second serve,I dont think he really has weaknesses

With regards to Murrays forehand, he doesn't use the momentum that would naturally come from his torso,his swing is coming from shoulder so he effectively doesn't generate enough power for his forehand to really be lethal.Its quite strange what he does,almost as if he breaks his forehand down into 2 motions which takes the bite out that could be created out of the momentum and rhythm.He isn't using his core to generate momentum
Its quite a major technical flaw which at this stage in his career is probably too risky to even consider to attempt to correct,thats really like going back to square one.This just hits home the importance of learning the right technique from the get go cause old habits die hard and Murray is definitely the kind of player who would go back to his comfort zone under intense pressure.
I think Brad Gilbert once hinted that this technical flaw is he main reason he always suspected why Murray would never win a major,but would obviously would never have admitted to that while he was coaching Murray

Im surprised it was never corrected while he was in Spain
What I meant was there are certain things you that should have by the time you turn pro,if you're not a big hitter by the time you turn pro,your not ever going to be a big hitter so if Murray doesn't have a killer shot by then he probably never will.After a certain age its too late to try and correct technical flaws and like Murrays forehand,these are the kind of things a player should have corrected before turning pro
I agree there are many aspects of a players game that could be improved, but if you don't have a killer shot by the time you turn pro,you most likely never will,if you're not a big hitter when you turn pro,you wont become a big hitter on tour.If you have a technical flaw in your forehand it makes it harder to improve because the basics aren't correct

That said Murray has a winning formula with his tactical game,he has been the legitimate no4 for several years and usually makes the semis of majors,so he is doing ok regardless of not having that killer shot and is making the best of what he has.But the last 2 times he made the finals at the AO he played his best tennis he produced all seasoning the run up but then looked completely out of depth in the final.Even at this years AO,the match with Djokovic was epic,probably the best I have ever seen him play and his improvement was still not enough.And that was just against Djokovic,,if he made the final he would still have to face Roger or Nadal.Last year when he made the final at the AO he didn't have face any of the top 3 on route to the final and still lost to one player and the year before Nadal retired and he lost to Federer.So if he cant or struggles to take 3 sets off one player,its not looking good to even consider if he could take 6 sets of 2 of them back to back

Y I Man

What's the difference between a "sneaky feeling" and a sneaky wish?

Veejay

Why do you think Djokovics ability to win a few slams has anything to do with Murrays ability.

I am surprised that no one here thinks Murray is going to win the FO.

I've admitted before Im not Murray's biggest fan. But in the same breath I have seen the improvements in his game over the last couple of years. It more of a hunch that he will win at Wimbledon if you will.

I wasn't accususing you of beiing Murray's biggest fan. Everyone knows that role belongs to CaladonianCraig...

Murray has no technical issue with the FH. Watch last year against Nadal, Djokovic, Berrer and Troicki on clay. If anything he has a less demanding technique. Like I said before on another thread his FH and the Clijsters FH have similarities. Djokovic and Nadal have no killer shot if we are brutally honest. Federer has his FH and yet if that goes to pot he is a certainty to lose the match. The last killer shot I could recall was the Sampras serve. Other than that you have players who play to their strengths. A killer shot is not going to win Slams nowadays. It is a culmination of strengths players play to. Let's not be blind and one dimensional in terms of trying to offer technical insight when it is not there. Murray has a good FH and doesn't back it enough in big matches. Do not be surprised to see it used with greater consistency when the clay season comes.

Look at Federer. His FH up the line is a great 'strategy' because he is able to control the point and his shots and plays in tight and precise margins. Take the AO between Nadal and Djokovic. Was their any killer shots? Nope. Was their good strategies? Nope. It was a brute iron man contest based on who would start to make the most errors.

His past Slam finals he has been found wanting because he takes too long to settle. The first sets in his respective AO finals demonstrate that Federer and Djokovic played some aggressive tennis in the first set because they knew Murray would not be one to start on the front foot. If anything after his clay campaign in 2011 he started to play more aggressively. Take his semi with Nadal at Wimbledon. He literally slaughtered Nadal for a set and half before mentally succumbing to self imposed pressure based on one missed shot.

It is not so much Andy does not have killer shot, more he does not have the killer tactics or mindset to really 'dominate' a Slam.

hawkeye wrote:Y I Man

What's the difference between a "sneaky feeling" and a sneaky wish?

Veejay

Why do you think Djokovics ability to win a few slams has anything to do with Murrays ability.

I am surprised that no one here thinks Murray is going to win the FO.

Because Im a firm believer in mind over matter,Djokovic sorted his mind out and just look at his success
When he finally realised his full potential and truly believed he could achieve it he went from being the joker who always retired because its too hot or because he has a blister on his foot and everyone questioned how serious he took the sport,to becoming the no1 player,have one of the best seasons ever in the open era, with an incredible winning streak,dethroned an all time great like Nadal on every surface and finally got the better of Federer
The way he turned his career around is phenomenal,especially after playing second fiddle to Roger and Nadal for so long and taking some real thrashings from them at times
Sure I have mentioned technicalities which could hold Murray back but its not like the guy isn't talented.I think what holds Murray back the most is the fact that he doest have a champions mentality.He is very arrogant,but I think his arrogance stems more from insecurity then really believing he is the best.He is very competitive but I dont think he has ever truly believed he could beat Roger,Nadal or Djokovic in a grand slam final,perhaps in a semi final but 3 finals and not a single set?

I tend to agree with Veejay, Legend killer, I have made basically the same critique of Murray's forehand. In that he doesn't get enough body rotation on the forehand and that he seems to have a hitch in it and he arms the forehand especially when it isn't going well.

Yes, I know you believe he hit that forehand very well against Djokovic. But yes he hit a lot of winners but he hit a great deal more errors. And that is the problem when you don't get good rotation and easy power with the forehand, when you try to go for it you will hit a lot more errors. Maybe that is why he hesistates.


I would disagree with Veejay in that Murray doesn't have a killer shot. I think he has one of top 5 backhands in the game, probably top 3. And he is one of the best at pressuring and hitting great returns, especially off the second serve return. The return as all the top guys are showing nowadays, in today's game is just as big maybe a bigger weapon than the serve itself.

legendkillar wrote:Murray has no technical issue with the FH. Watch last year against Nadal, Djokovic, Berrer and Troicki on clay. If anything he has a less demanding technique. Like I said before on another thread his FH and the Clijsters FH have similarities. Djokovic and Nadal have no killer shot if we are brutally honest. Federer has his FH and yet if that goes to pot he is a certainty to lose the match. The last killer shot I could recall was the Sampras serve. Other than that you have players who play to their strengths. A killer shot is not going to win Slams nowadays. It is a culmination of strengths players play to. Let's not be blind and one dimensional in terms of trying to offer technical insight when it is not there. Murray has a good FH and doesn't back it enough in big matches. Do not be surprised to see it used with greater consistency when the clay season comes.

Look at Federer. His FH up the line is a great 'strategy' because he is able to control the point and his shots and plays in tight and precise margins. Take the AO between Nadal and Djokovic. Was their any killer shots? Nope. Was their good strategies? Nope. It was a brute iron man contest based on who would start to make the most errors.

His past Slam finals he has been found wanting because he takes too long to settle. The first sets in his respective AO finals demonstrate that Federer and Djokovic played some aggressive tennis in the first set because they knew Murray would not be one to start on the front foot. If anything after his clay campaign in 2011 he started to play more aggressively. Take his semi with Nadal at Wimbledon. He literally slaughtered Nadal for a set and half before mentally succumbing to self imposed pressure based on one missed shot.

It is not so much Andy does not have killer shot, more he does not have the killer tactics or mindset to really 'dominate' a Slam.

Ok lets for a minute agree theres no technical flaw,Murrays forehand is very good but its not lethal,thats the difference
Recent grand slam winners:
Roger- the most lethal forehand during his prime,one of the most effective serves because the ball toss is the same which makes it a lot harder to read,plus its very reliable,consistent and for the most part has been very accurate
Nadal- apparently he is actually right handed but grew up playing left handed,which places him in a unique position in the sense that he doesn't really have a "back hand",its more like he has 2 forehands.Ferocious forehand and his improved serve I believe played a big part in wining the U.S Open
Del Potro- considered one of the best forehands in the game probably the best in 09,he went from being humiliated at the AO to nearly stopping Roger from winning his only RG title to then blowing Nadal and Roger right off the court at the U.S Open back to back when no one has ever done that before.The win was then backed up by sending Roger packing in the semi finals at the WTF
Djokovic- credits his success to rediscovering his serve and he is the man to beat right now
Murray- he doesn't have any such shot places him in the conversation with the above players,while his forehand is very good and reliable,to win a major against the above players,he needs a shot that can do a lot of damage,a shot that can really hurt them,right now he doesn't have a shot that can do that,his forehand needs to lethal, cause very good won't cut it against these guys and to win a major he is looking at having to beat 2 of them back to back for a title
his game is very tactical and relies a lot on drawing errors from his opponent ,how many grand slam to his name? None,3 finals and not a single set won.Yeah he played really well at the AO,but the truth is the last time he beat a player ranked higher then him in a grand slam was Nadal at 2010 AO,well technically Nadal retired and before that I think ( correct me if Im wrong) the last time before that was also Nadal in 2008 at the U.S open semi final.So he hasn't really beaten a player ranker higher then him in a grand slam in almost 4 years.This suggests that while he is capable of taking 2 sets off anyone of them,he is finding it really hard to get that 3rd set off them,which is I said he doesn't have that killer shot to take him deep into the match,case in point,straight sets demolition in every final.He isn't going to win a grand slam against these players waiting for them to make errors,to beat them he is going to have to outhit them,like Del Potro did.If he is struggling to just take 3 sets off one player,taking 6 sets of 2 of them back to back seems like a really tall oder,especially if you include the disadvantage

I will admit he looked like a very different player against Djokovic,but his track record in recent years suggests he usually plays his best tennis down under.I guess time will tell if the new Murray is here to stay or if it selected appearances
How much all the above and not having a killer shot plays part in his inability to win a major is impossible to tell,I think the only person who could really answer that would be Murray,only he really knows whats going on his head and how he rates his chances,but looking at the above,I don't think we can rule out the possibility that lacking such a shot does plays a part,no matter how small it is
Anyway,back to the technical flaw,just by looking at how long it takes Murray to get over a tough loss,its obvious he is a bit of a mental case,so I think even if Murrays technique was as sound as Rogers,his mind would probably still hold him back

Veejay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Murray has no technical issue with the FH. Watch last year against Nadal, Djokovic, Berrer and Troicki on clay. If anything he has a less demanding technique. Like I said before on another thread his FH and the Clijsters FH have similarities. Djokovic and Nadal have no killer shot if we are brutally honest. Federer has his FH and yet if that goes to pot he is a certainty to lose the match. The last killer shot I could recall was the Sampras serve. Other than that you have players who play to their strengths. A killer shot is not going to win Slams nowadays. It is a culmination of strengths players play to. Let's not be blind and one dimensional in terms of trying to offer technical insight when it is not there. Murray has a good FH and doesn't back it enough in big matches. Do not be surprised to see it used with greater consistency when the clay season comes.

Look at Federer. His FH up the line is a great 'strategy' because he is able to control the point and his shots and plays in tight and precise margins. Take the AO between Nadal and Djokovic. Was their any killer shots? Nope. Was their good strategies? Nope. It was a brute iron man contest based on who would start to make the most errors.

His past Slam finals he has been found wanting because he takes too long to settle. The first sets in his respective AO finals demonstrate that Federer and Djokovic played some aggressive tennis in the first set because they knew Murray would not be one to start on the front foot. If anything after his clay campaign in 2011 he started to play more aggressively. Take his semi with Nadal at Wimbledon. He literally slaughtered Nadal for a set and half before mentally succumbing to self imposed pressure based on one missed shot.

It is not so much Andy does not have killer shot, more he does not have the killer tactics or mindset to really 'dominate' a Slam.

Ok lets for a minute agree theres no technical flaw,Murrays forehand is very good but its not lethal,thats the difference
Recent grand slam winners:
Roger- the most lethal forehand during his prime,one of the most effective serves because the ball toss is the same which makes it a lot harder to read,plus its very reliable,consistent and for the most part has been very accurate
Nadal- apparently he is actually right handed but grew up playing left handed,which places him in a unique position in the sense that he doesn't really have a "back hand",its more like he has 2 forehands.Ferocious forehand and his improved serve I believe played a big part in wining the U.S Open
Del Potro- considered one of the best forehands in the game probably the best in 09,he went from being humiliated at the AO to nearly stopping Roger from winning his only RG title to then blowing Nadal and Roger right off the court at the U.S Open back to back when no one has ever done that before.The win was then backed up by sending Roger packing in the semi finals at the WTF
Djokovic- credits his success to rediscovering his serve and he is the man to beat right now
Murray- he doesn't have any such shot places him in the conversation with the above players,while his forehand is very good and reliable,to win a major against the above players,he needs a shot that can do a lot of damage,a shot that can really hurt them,right now he doesn't have a shot that can do that,his forehand needs to lethal, cause very good won't cut it against these guys and to win a major he is looking at having to beat 2 of them back to back for a title
his game is very tactical and relies a lot on drawing errors from his opponent ,how many grand slam to his name? None,3 finals and not a single set won.Yeah he played really well at the AO,but the truth is the last time he beat a player ranked higher then him in a grand slam was Nadal at 2010 AO,well technically Nadal retired and before that I think ( correct me if Im wrong) the last time before that was also Nadal in 2008 at the U.S open semi final.So he hasn't really beaten a player ranker higher then him in a grand slam in almost 4 years.This suggests that while he is capable of taking 2 sets off anyone of them,he is finding it really hard to get that 3rd set off them,which is I said he doesn't have that killer shot to take him deep into the match,case in point,straight sets demolition in every final.He isn't going to win a grand slam against these players waiting for them to make errors,to beat them he is going to have to outhit them,like Del Potro did.If he is struggling to just take 3 sets off one player,taking 6 sets of 2 of them back to back seems like a really tall oder,especially if you include the disadvantage

I will admit he looked like a very different player against Djokovic,but his track record in recent years suggests he usually plays his best tennis down under.I guess time will tell if the new Murray is here to stay or if it selected appearances
How much all the above and not having a killer shot plays part in his inability to win a major is impossible to tell,I think the only person who could really answer that would be Murray,only he really knows whats going on his head and how he rates his chances,but looking at the above,I don't think we can rule out the possibility that lacking such a shot does plays a part,no matter how small it is
Anyway,back to the technical flaw,just by looking at how long it takes Murray to get over a tough loss,its obvious he is a bit of a mental case,so I think even if Murrays technique was as sound as Rogers,his mind would probably still hold him back

That was a lot to take in. Look at it from this angle.

Federer - Has the best flat FH in history.

Nadal - Has the best FH for variation the game has seen

Del Potro - Had a big FH, a big factor in his Slam success was Federer's 50% first serves in. Not the best returner of serve, but has a powerful FH

Djokovic - Has improved the first serve and a lot of that was down to him ridding of Martin and accustoming himself to a new racquet.

Looking at that list it is very difficult to pin Slam success on a 'killer' shot.

It is widely agreed that Murray as the right tools to win a Slam. A lot of his failure in the past has been more of a mental thing than a technical thing.

Veejey

IMO anyone who dismissed Djokovic prior to his 2011 run just wasn't paying attention. He has always been a great player capable of challenging both Federer and Nadal. Way back in 2008 he beat Federer in the semi's on the way to his 1st AO title. He ran Nadal close the same year at Hamburg, Queens and the Olympics (3 very high quality matches that could have gone either way...). Its just wishful thinking that gives Murray similar credentials to Djokovic.

Veejay, how can you say that Murray doesn't have a killer shot when you consider his return game and backhand?

And legend here I disagree with you again. Murray's forehand does have a glitch. When you talk about he bossed Djokovic one match doesn't make it for me. Plus, he hit a couple of more winners with the forehand with a lot more errors. Which leads me to be believe that the winners weren't coming naturally with easy power but was something that he had to force.

Veejay love your enthusiasm but can you get a little concise. I lose interest in a post after 100 words, and I am pretty long winded myself.

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, how can you say that Murray doesn't have a killer shot when you consider his return game and backhand?

And legend here I disagree with you again. Murray's forehand does have a glitch. When you talk about he bossed Djokovic one match doesn't make it for me. Plus, he hit a couple of more winners with the forehand with a lot more errors. Which leads me to be believe that the winners weren't coming naturally with easy power but was something that he had to force.

Veejay love your enthusiasm but can you get a little concise. I lose interest in a post after 100 words, and I am pretty long winded myself.

There is a difference to glitch than mental belief in execution.

If there was a technical glitch, the guy would be nowehere near the top 150.

Not true legend, plenty of great players at the highest level. Djokovic in 2009 and 2010 managed a top three finish with an attrocious serve. Mcenroe had a technically ugly forehand. Pete's backhand was also a weird looking shot. A technical glitch in one particular stroke is not something that disqualifies you necessarily from the highest levels of the game.

socal1976 wrote:Not true legend, plenty of great players at the highest level. Djokovic in 2009 and 2010 managed a top three finish with an attrocious serve. Mcenroe had a technically ugly forehand. Pete's backhand was also a weird looking shot. A technical glitch in one particular stroke is not something that disqualifies you necessarily from the highest levels of the game.

But a shot woefully out of form is different to a glitch.

The Sampras BH is under-rated. It was a solid enough stroke.

McEnroe had an ugly game all-round, but it fitted at the time.

Veejay wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Y I Man

What's the difference between a "sneaky feeling" and a sneaky wish?

Veejay

Why do you think Djokovics ability to win a few slams has anything to do with Murrays ability.

I am surprised that no one here thinks Murray is going to win the FO.

Because Im a firm believer in mind over matter,Djokovic sorted his mind out and just look at his success
When he finally realised his full potential and truly believed he could achieve it he went from being the joker who always retired because its too hot or because he has a blister on his foot and everyone questioned how serious he took the sport,to becoming the no1 player,have one of the best seasons ever in the open era, with an incredible winning streak,dethroned an all time great like Nadal on every surface and finally got the better of Federer
The way he turned his career around is phenomenal,especially after playing second fiddle to Roger and Nadal for so long and taking some real thrashings from them at times
Sure I have mentioned technicalities which could hold Murray back but its not like the guy isn't talented.I think what holds Murray back the most is the fact that he doest have a champions mentality.He is very arrogant,but I think his arrogance stems more from insecurity then really believing he is the best.He is very competitive but I dont think he has ever truly believed he could beat Roger,Nadal or Djokovic in a grand slam final,perhaps in a semi final but 3 finals and not a single set?

Good post veejay. I'd agree with most of that. With Andy it is all about belief and mentality as the talent is already there.

hawkeye wrote:Veejey

IMO anyone who dismissed Djokovic prior to his 2011 run just wasn't paying attention. He has always been a great player capable of challenging both Federer and Nadal. Way back in 2008 he beat Federer in the semi's on the way to his 1st AO title. He ran Nadal close the same year at Hamburg, Queens and the Olympics (3 very high quality matches that could have gone either way...). Its just wishful thinking that gives Murray similar credentials to Djokovic.

Im not dismissing Murray,merely stating the facts,I said Im a firm believer in mind over matter and that Murrays mind is probably his biggest enemy.Whether he turns his career around entirely up to him,I think he can certainly improve his mental fortitude but thats up to him.
But you cant use his fragile mind as an excuse every time he loses,sometimes you gotta admit a player isn't good enough to beat their opponent and taking his match up with other players into consideration Murray has never been a serious threat to anyone of them,he walks on court as the loser and usually walks off court as the loser,he has never shown that he has the ability to really hurt them when it matters and that he can dethrone them at majors and in the rankings.Every time he moved up in the ranking when Nadal and Federer didn't defend their points,as soon as they were back in the draw,Murray was back being no4 within 3 weeks
Novak proved himself back in 08 winning his maiden slam,Murray cant take a set off someone in a grand slam final.What am I missing?
While I hope he does find a way to turn things around like Novak did,looking at the above and the fact that his game lacks a killer shot you cant really expect me to believe it until I see it

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Veejay wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Y I Man

What's the difference between a "sneaky feeling" and a sneaky wish?

Veejay

Why do you think Djokovics ability to win a few slams has anything to do with Murrays ability.

I am surprised that no one here thinks Murray is going to win the FO.

Because Im a firm believer in mind over matter,Djokovic sorted his mind out and just look at his success
When he finally realised his full potential and truly believed he could achieve it he went from being the joker who always retired because its too hot or because he has a blister on his foot and everyone questioned how serious he took the sport,to becoming the no1 player,have one of the best seasons ever in the open era, with an incredible winning streak,dethroned an all time great like Nadal on every surface and finally got the better of Federer
The way he turned his career around is phenomenal,especially after playing second fiddle to Roger and Nadal for so long and taking some real thrashings from them at times
Sure I have mentioned technicalities which could hold Murray back but its not like the guy isn't talented.I think what holds Murray back the most is the fact that he doest have a champions mentality.He is very arrogant,but I think his arrogance stems more from insecurity then really believing he is the best.He is very competitive but I dont think he has ever truly believed he could beat Roger,Nadal or Djokovic in a grand slam final,perhaps in a semi final but 3 finals and not a single set?

Good post veejay. I'd agree with most of that. With Andy it is all about belief and mentality as the talent is already there.

"belief and mentality" Pffft! If you shut your eyes and say "I will win a slam, I will win a slam" then it will be true? I'm sorry CaledonianCraig I'm not trying to be mean to you (as I know you are such a big fan) but that is nonsense. If it were true it would apply not just to Murray but to many other players.

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Veejay wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Y I Man

What's the difference between a "sneaky feeling" and a sneaky wish?

Veejay

Why do you think Djokovics ability to win a few slams has anything to do with Murrays ability.

I am surprised that no one here thinks Murray is going to win the FO.

Because Im a firm believer in mind over matter,Djokovic sorted his mind out and just look at his success
When he finally realised his full potential and truly believed he could achieve it he went from being the joker who always retired because its too hot or because he has a blister on his foot and everyone questioned how serious he took the sport,to becoming the no1 player,have one of the best seasons ever in the open era, with an incredible winning streak,dethroned an all time great like Nadal on every surface and finally got the better of Federer
The way he turned his career around is phenomenal,especially after playing second fiddle to Roger and Nadal for so long and taking some real thrashings from them at times
Sure I have mentioned technicalities which could hold Murray back but its not like the guy isn't talented.I think what holds Murray back the most is the fact that he doest have a champions mentality.He is very arrogant,but I think his arrogance stems more from insecurity then really believing he is the best.He is very competitive but I dont think he has ever truly believed he could beat Roger,Nadal or Djokovic in a grand slam final,perhaps in a semi final but 3 finals and not a single set?

Good post veejay. I'd agree with most of that. With Andy it is all about belief and mentality as the talent is already there.

"belief and mentality" Pffft! If you shut your eyes and say "I will win a slam, I will win a slam" then it will be true? I'm sorry CaledonianCraig I'm not trying to be mean to you (as I know you are such a big fan) but that is nonsense. If it were true it would apply not just to Murray but to many other players.

Not read Agassi's book then.

I have but I'm realistic to know that a bit of "belief and mentality" won't be enough to help me win my first slam... unfortunately...

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, how can you say that Murray doesn't have a killer shot when you consider his return game and backhand?

And legend here I disagree with you again. Murray's forehand does have a glitch. When you talk about he bossed Djokovic one match doesn't make it for me. Plus, he hit a couple of more winners with the forehand with a lot more errors. Which leads me to be believe that the winners weren't coming naturally with easy power but was something that he had to force.

Veejay love your enthusiasm but can you get a little concise. I lose interest in a post after 100 words, and I am pretty long winded myself.

When did I do that?
The truth is if Murray had the game to hurt these guys,he would be hurting them,but he isn't.He hasnt ever been legitimate threat to dethrone them in majors or the rankings,the last time he was in the conversation to be the player to dethrone Roger at the U.S Open,I think he lost in the 4th round in straight sets.The hype was ridiculous based on the fact that he won a Masters series 1000 event prior to the open.Well turns out the guy with killer shot that could do real damage to the strong hold Nadal and Roger had over the majors went on to blow them both right off the court back to back.Im sorry but I don't think Murray can to the same thing with his backhand,if he could have,he would have by now,but seeing that he hasn't can only mean that he cant
When did I say he bossed Djokovic,I don't believe I ever said that,I definitely rate the match as one of the best Ive seen and even though Murray really challenged Djokovic this time,I would certainly not call that bossing someone around
Bossing someone around in my opinion would be playing solely on your terms and not allowing you opponent anything least of all even a little toe into the match,bossing a player would be what Roger did to Del Potro in 09 at the AO 6-4 6-0 6-0 I think in under an hour and a half.Murray was nowhere near doing that to Djokovic.And this is what I mean the Djokovics Nadals and Federers can routinely do this to quality players in grand slams when everything comes together and they are having a good day so if you don't have a killer shot to really hurt them how else are you going to beat 2 of them back to back to win a major?

hawkeye wrote:I have but I'm realistic to know that a bit of "belief and mentality" won't be enough to help me win my first slam... unfortunately...

If you had Murray's tennis talent it might be . That is why it is more realistic for him than almost all other players though by no means a certainty.

hawkeye wrote:I have but I'm realistic to know that a bit of "belief and mentality" won't be enough to help me win my first slam... unfortunately...

Remember you also need talent. Although Djokovic won the AO in 2008 he still appeared to lack the 'belief and mentality' to repeat that until the back end of 2010. Now he has it in spades and the titles are stacking up.

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I have but I'm realistic to know that a bit of "belief and mentality" won't be enough to help me win my first slam... unfortunately...

If you had Murray's tennis talent it might be . That is why it is more realistic for him than almost all other players though by no means a certainty.

Ha ha! How do you know I havn't got talent? I'll have you know my backhand has been likened to Federer's (believe it or not this is true) but I was also warned that I would find playing Nadal tricky... so far (believe it or not) he hasn't caused me any problems yet...

hawkeye wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I have but I'm realistic to know that a bit of "belief and mentality" won't be enough to help me win my first slam... unfortunately...

If you had Murray's tennis talent it might be . That is why it is more realistic for him than almost all other players though by no means a certainty.

Ha ha! How do you know I havn't got talent? I'll have you know my backhand has been likened to Federer's (believe it or not this is true) but I was also warned that I would find playing Nadal tricky... so far (believe it or not) he hasn't caused me any problems yet...

Fair enough Hawkeye, I'll look forward to watching you in the next Grand Slam.

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I have but I'm realistic to know that a bit of "belief and mentality" won't be enough to help me win my first slam... unfortunately...

If you had Murray's tennis talent it might be . That is why it is more realistic for him than almost all other players though by no means a certainty.

Ha ha! How do you know I havn't got talent? I'll have you know my backhand has been likened to Federer's (believe it or not this is true) but I was also warned that I would find playing Nadal tricky... so far (believe it or not) he hasn't caused me any problems yet...

Fair enough Hawkeye, I'll look forward to watching you in the next Grand Slam.

Hope I don't get Nadal in the final... I might have to re-read that Aggasi book the night before if I do...

Interesting that so many posters seem to think it could well be Wimbledon where he wins his first slam.

The fact that Andy has made three consecutive semis would suggest another shot this year at potentially reaching the final so a fourth grand slam final appearance would certainly not be out of the question for sure.

I would still look at the US Open as his best chance this year particularly since he looked the part for the first set and a half against Rafa last year there.

Veejay,when I talked about Murray bossing Djoko on the forehand I was refering to our friend legend. It is true it is hard to dominate a 5 set match with the backhand, but I have seen it happen. IE super Richy Gazza against Roddick at wimbeldon hitting 60 plus winners in five sets with his one handed backhand and 100 winners total.

But I have seen plenty of 5 set championship matches turn on great returning performances. It isn't that he lacks a killer shot. It is the combination of two areas of weakness that the top guys exploit against murray. The forehand and the second serve. The second serve in particular was cruelly punished by Djoko in the semi, 11 breaks I believe. And Roger in his the AO final of 2010 really went to town on Andy's second serve as well. He needs to solidify both areas.

However, as most other poster have noted I also think Murray will win a slam and maybe this year at wimby. Because while it is easy to find fault he has a lot going right for his game.

hawkeye wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I have but I'm realistic to know that a bit of "belief and mentality" won't be enough to help me win my first slam... unfortunately...

If you had Murray's tennis talent it might be . That is why it is more realistic for him than almost all other players though by no means a certainty.

Ha ha! How do you know I havn't got talent? I'll have you know my backhand has been likened to Federer's (believe it or not this is true) but I was also warned that I would find playing Nadal tricky... so far (believe it or not) he hasn't caused me any problems yet...

Do you mean Federer's dad or mum's BH?

legendkillar

You are just jealous.

hawkeye wrote:legendkillar

You are just jealous.

Ha.

Wishful thinking Hawky.

Never ever

socal1976 wrote:Veejay,when I talked about Murray bossing Djoko on the forehand I was refering to our friend legend. It is true it is hard to dominate a 5 set match with the backhand, but I have seen it happen. IE super Richy Gazza against Roddick at wimbeldon hitting 60 plus winners in five sets with his one handed backhand and 100 winners total.

But I have seen plenty of 5 set championship matches turn on great returning performances. It isn't that he lacks a killer shot. It is the combination of two areas of weakness that the top guys exploit against murray. The forehand and the second serve. The second serve in particular was cruelly punished by Djoko in the semi, 11 breaks I believe. And Roger in his the AO final of 2010 really went to town on Andy's second serve as well. He needs to solidify both areas.

However, as most other poster have noted I also think Murray will win a slam and maybe this year at wimby. Because while it is easy to find fault he has a lot going right for his game.

Weak forehand....lack of a killer shot...same difference in my opinion
I agree with the second serve,and he certainly looks like things are heading in the right direction,but looking at his track record,especially his inability to out hit the heavyweights and be considered a serious threat ,I will only believe he is capable of winning a major when I see it happen.He may have come close to beating Djokovic and even if he did,that doesn't mean he's won the title,he would still have face Nadal or Federer in the final,but the point is he cannot even make past the first hurdle so I fail to see how he will make it past the second

banbrotam wrote:Never ever

So you now think Murray will "never ever" win a slam? I always saw you as one of the more optimistic Murray fans. You could be right of course but I think you should try and have a little hope...

Veejay wrote:but the point is he cannot even make past the first hurdle so I fail to see how he will make it past the second

Has his success over Nadal in two Slams, being airbrushed out of the tennis records

I like the way you automatically assume that he would lose to Federer. There's no longer current evidence to back this up - unless we think it's still January 2010 and Murray hasn't improved and Fed hasn't (at best) stood still

And we'll airbrush the two finals these two last met in as well, whilst we're at it!!

So a lot of subtle but significant occurences in the last couple of years as lady time catches up with the GOAT

Then again I suppose Fed's 2011 O2 performance, shows what he can do, given that some thought he was back to his very best - as though

I'm not certain he will this year, myself. Nole looks simply too good and I think could win all four - but it's now folly to automatically put Roger above him, simply because he has the historyany player can reproduce that 2005 form at will!!

hawkeye wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Never ever

So you now think Murray will "never ever" win a slam? I always saw you as one of the more optimistic Murray fans. You could be right of course but I think you should try and have a little hope...

Interesting!! My sarcastic comment being matched by the king of sarcasm!!

hawkeye wrote:I wasn't accususing you of beiing Murray's biggest fan. Everyone knows that role belongs to CaladonianCraig...

[quote="legendkillar"]

socal1976 wrote:McEnroe had an ugly game all-round

Tell me you're joking

Did you miss 1984??!!!

Dodgy forehand yes, but that instintive touch game 'ugly'?????

banbrotam wrote:

Veejay wrote:but the point is he cannot even make past the first hurdle so I fail to see how he will make it past the second

Has his success over Nadal in two Slams, being airbrushed out of the tennis records

I like the way you automatically assume that he would lose to Federer. There's no longer current evidence to back this up - unless we think it's still January 2010 and Murray hasn't improved and Fed hasn't (at best) stood still

And we'll airbrush the two finals these two last met in as well, whilst we're at it!!

So a lot of subtle but significant occurences in the last couple of years as lady time catches up with the GOAT

Then again I suppose Fed's 2011 O2 performance, shows what he can do, given that some thought he was back to his very best - as though

I'm not certain he will this year, myself. Nole looks simply too good and I think could win all four - but it's now folly to automatically put Roger above him, simply because he has the historyany player can reproduce that 2005 form at will!!

Until he can actually take a set off Roger in a grand slam what else and I supposed to assume? He has never beaten Roger in a major before and the last time he beat anyone who is in this conversation in a major was almost 4 years ago.Of course theres always a first for everything and times have changed but you cant expect me to believe anything until he actually proves that he can do it,until that day comes,no amount of assumptions will change the fact that that he never has.Even if the last time they met was 50 years ago you still cannot expect me to believe anything until it actually happens.Thats all I can go on.Theres really no other way I can explain

Technically if he had won the semi final it would have been Nadal not Federer he would have had faced who I think he has lost to every time they met in a major since the 08 U.S open semi final,so I once again have to pick Nadal as the winner and Murray cannot make it past the second hurdle until the day comes where he proves he can
The first hurdle is to take 3 sets off one of the heavy weights in a semi final, so how can he make it past the second hurdle which is basically equates to 6 sets off 2 different heavy weights back to back if he cannot even take 3 sets off one heavy weight in the first hurdle?