Murray Has Been Thinking... A Lot

After his loss to Garcia Lopez Murray had a lot of thinking to do. This from The Times (PPV but as always well worth it)

“I have a pretty good understanding of why it happened and I’ll address that and make sure it doesn’t happen again,” Murray said.

“Like everything it takes a bit of time. I was sitting in my room thinking about it the night it happened and the following morning when I got up, thinking about it."

“There are a lot of things that go into playing tennis and playing sport that aren’t just hitting tennis balls. You’ve got to make sure you’re as clear in your mind as you can be when you go out there and when you are, that’s normally when you play your best tennis — certainly in my case it is.”



I agree with Murray tennis can be a complex game. The trick is to do the correct amount of thinking. Just enough so you know what's happening but not too much or you wont have a clear mind...

It took him this long to figure that out?
Sounds like he really stretch his thinking cap this time,makes you wonder what he was thinking prior to this loss
OK hes has a mental break through,it should be congratulated,thats one small step in the right direction,but how much longer will it take for him to make the giant leap,which is applying it through belief?
Place all bets here

So in other words something was on his mind.

Lol, if this was Nadal there would be a 6 page thread already on the aberrations of his words, what could he be hiding and the guy is having a mental breakdown.
Players, especially the not quite top top ones, lose matches. It happens. Murray, the ability to clear your mind before going on court is what separates the very best, you're right it's not about hitting balls...it's about knowing how you're going to hit them. This is what separates Fed, Nad and Djo from the rest...they have the ability to clear their mind and focus come what may before the match starts. This is also part of their talent. Murray is admitting he can't always do that....and you know that's more a worry at this stage of his career than issues on FH or serve he can physically work on. This is something fundamental you do at the highest level....win under pressure and expectation. He's practically admitting he can't always get into the zone before the match. In some respects this explains his weird losses more than anything else. But he could still have 2 good weeks at some point....

Hawkeye if you had provided the link then I may have had a different response to this thread, so instead I'll make a generalisation that I have made previously.

It has been dawning on me for some time that Andy Murray is a bit thick as well as stubborn. With Ivan Lendl in consultation, Murray now has access to a brain. Unfortunately the Murray - Lendl relationship is part-time and long distance.

Murray underestemated Lopez. Simple as that.
Didn't get pumped like he does when he plays the very top players.

Nore Staat wrote:With Ivan Lendl in consultation, Murray now has access to a brain. Unfortunately the Murray - Lendl relationship is part-time and long distance.

I like it; pithy and to the point, I fear you're living dangerously on these here boards though Nore

noleisthebest wrote:Murray underestemated Lopez. Simple as that.
Didn't get pumped like he does when he plays the very top players.

That's exactly what I believe too - we've seen it so often from Murray, it's even apparent in his demeanour before the match - which rather lends weight to Nore's point above!

I'm becoming very adverse to saying about Andy (mostly down to fears of sparking retribution on these boards from his die-hard fanatical fans)

Sometimes though I do wish he'd "let his tennis do the talking" as he doesn't exactly come across as on e of the brighter boys on the circuit when he opens his mouth without a pre-prepared script or his mum there to help him out.

To be fair, I think he comes under so much scrutiny from the British Press because he is standing out there all on his own. There is something very endearing about Murray, he just seems a lot emotionally younger than either Djokovic or Nadal and a lot more naive about handling the press.

But agree, if he could learn to perhaps not give the press too much before a tournament - find a way to look as if he is giving them something while not offering any insights into his game or where he is mentally, then he will relieve a lot of pressure from himself.

It is a bit like this recent tale with Nadal texting him while he was at dinner - he just seems a bit overawed or impressed with that friendship - it's great that they are mates etc but if that is an angle the press are going to play up before another meeting then it is not putting Murray in the right place to stare Rafa down across the net. It is, or should be, irrelevant to us whether they are bestie friends or just playstation muckers - it seems a plea to be liked in some way.

Agree he could do with some very good sports related PR when it comes to talking with the press

PR is one thing, being innately able to focus on matters come match time is another...the fact he didnt get pumped for GL is part of the problem I'm talking about. The top 3 dont tend to underestimate anyone, they treat each match as vital. Thats the difference.
I just dont think Murray is as sharp in the zoning/focussing dept. as those above him on a consistent basis...and the results tend to show this with the inconsistency he has.

I do agree with your first sentence particularly lydian - it is Cilic US all over again!

Oh dear what a match that was!

I am presuming, as the most active Murray poster here that I am deemed fanatical? Sorry newballs but I suggest you check the dictionary as fanatical people are ones with extremist views. Can you point out my extreme views please? I have said Murray may or may not win a slam and is certainly in contention which everyone with a modicum of intelligence would concur with. Hardly extreme so would be good if you could explain the remark.

I think we all know Murray isnt really at the same level as the top 3 in reality of potential achievement. But there is no reason he cant string 2 great weeks together in future to win a slam...and so by definition there will be weeks inbetween where he's losing...and losing inconsistently to players he shouldnt. I'm not a partic Murray fan but assume most of his fans have got used to this inconsistency potential from week to week with him. Whats disappointing to me though is that his coaching approach seems not as rigorous as the other guys. At least with Federer you got the impression he always knew exactly what he needed, either no coach, or a very specific coach for a short arrangement to work on specific things. Nadal and Djoko have very locked down approaches so no discussion there. With Murray you get the feeling he doesnt really know what he needs but professes to do so, and then his interviews seem to be a shoring up of the decision he made. Still think he needs a "proper" coach who has played in the modern game more recently and knows the demands of the modern tour, etc. Lendl is a great mentor perhaps, but not a performance coach...the problem he needs a guy who can be both. I think Agassi is the perfect guy for Murray...just a shame Andre isnt doing this type of thing. Yet.

why certainly CC fanatical means having lots of or even excessive enthusiasm for a particular cause. Nothing too bad there unless it turns more extreme.

Now I've never accused you of real extremist opinion. That would be the equivalent of saying Andy will definitely or will definitely not win a slam and no-one can crystal ball gaze that one. I think the difficulty arises when posters (and I've never accused you of this one) take such extreme views as the norm and won't tolerate any that differ from their viewpoint. Impossible to debate with such people as they clearly aren't interested in anybody's opinions that differ from theirs.

The fact that we can have this debate suggests neither of are that extreme in our opinions. Mine is that Andy (as he matures as a player) finally makes the most of his talent and doesn't let his impetuosity (for want of a better word) rule his head.

So where are these fanatical Murray supporters then?? Purely, out of interest or else perhaps it would be wise to re-word the post.

CC you asked me for a definition of fanatical so I tried my best to provide you with one.

The identities of the most radical zealots escape me but come the time when their messiah looks like he's ready to deliver the goods they'll doubtless reveal themselves.

Saw a similar article in another paper yesterday. Didn't say much more apart from the fact that he had trained hard and felt good before the tournament. I actually think it's quire an honest article. He is admitting getting something wrong in his preparation which is down to himself and not trying to blame anyone or anything else.

I posted after his latest loss that he, with Lendl, needed to work out why he seemed to struggle in his first matches of tournaments and not just treat losses like this as blips.

Looks like he is doing this and hope to see an improvement if he has actually pinpointed what was wrong.

And like I pointed out fanatics have extreme views and as far as I can see aI have been on here since the early days I can't recall seeing a fanatical Murray poster on here - at least not a serious and serial one. I therefore don't see why the need to use it. As for any Murray fans who wish to get berserk should Andy ever win a slam on here I say good luck to them and I hope they fill their boots. After all we Murray fans have had to take so much stick and dross posted about him and listened to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic fans crowing over slam wins so why shouldn't we do the same?

Lol, if this was Nadal there would be a 6 page thread already on the aberrations of his words

Because he's the biggest excuse making drama queen involved in all sports, when you cheat and annoy people so much you're bound to be made an example of in tennis forums..

Nore Staat

I can't provide a link as such as its in The Times and you have to pay to view that site or be a subcriber . If your interested you could do that or you could buy todays copy of the paper. Its a shame that its not available free as other papers are as its tennis coverage is very good.

CaladonianCraig

I agree with you that Murray "may or may not win a slam". But that isn't really enough to qualify as a fan is it?

A fan is not blinkered to one line of thought. They may want something badly ie their favourite team/player to win the biggest trophies their sport can offer but they can also keep their feet on the ground about the possibilities of it happening. That does not disqualify them from being a fan.

What's the deal with all the naval gazing? He should just accept he had a bad day and move on, everyone loses from time to time. We are not machines!!!!

Who says he hasn't accepted it though SuperDBoon. I'd hazard a guess that this article stems from a random comment he has made during a press conference leading up to his doubles match. British tennis players of any note are very thin on the ground so any random remark however innocent or non-descript made by Andy is a story to British media. Other top players are a little luckier in that area as Rafael Nadal has a number of fellow Spaniards for their press to report on, Swiss media have Roger, Stan and the women's players and Novak has Tipsarevic and Troicki that can be reported on.

CaledonianCraig

You should get out more! Everything Rafa and Roger say to the media is analysed, talked about, dissected for hidden meaning, thrown at other players and then talked about again. No other players take the pressure off them.

I'm not saying that Andy is under the microscope in the same way but he must have realised by now what the job of journalists is? If not he has highly paid advisers to help him. Media work is part of his job. Not only should Andy think before he hits the ball he should think before he opens his mouth (at least to the media).

A good example for him would be to look at how Novak handles the media. Like Andy he has huge media interest from his own country but he knows how to use it and is excellent at this part of his job.

Or perhaps you should start posting links to their stories and enlighten me as to the amount of press they get as you only post stuff about Murray. Odd considering you are a Nadal fan.

CC : I've been a bit of an interested bystander on this and other 'Murray threads.' I do want him to do well in his career, I admire his huge talent, I think there's a good chance he will manage that elusive Slam but equally I won't be distraught if he doesn't.

That said, I'm beginning to think AM gets a surprisingly harsh time here - and often you're taking the flak too, as one of his strong supporters.

Couldn't help noticing on another thread running yesterday ("My forehand is very different ....." ) that you were being accused of not giving credit to Murray's opponents when clearly you had done so. (I myself had a slightly testy exchange with you on the mustn't-mention-the-virus issue, although that was just a passing thing....)

Anyway, I doubt you're overly-concerned about what I happen to think (and in all honesty why should you be...?!) BUT for what worth I just wanted to say that you acquitted yourself well on that particular thread yesterday afternoon, such that it changed my views as regards your stance on Murray and also his peers.

Murray will justifiably continue to come in for criticism, like any other player, but it must be tough to defend him as you do in the face of not just criticism, but very often pure animosity.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Or perhaps you should start posting links to their stories and enlighten me as to the amount of press they get as you only post stuff about Murray. Odd considering you are a Nadal fan.

You cant be serious! You don't really need me to post links to stories (both positive and negative) about Federer and Nadal. Do you?

Thank you very much for your kind words lags. Yes it has been tough dealing with the flak, stick, unfounded stuff etc which I've done on the old BBC606 site and to a lesser degree here. Constructive criticism of Andy I can hack any time and have been known to criticise elements of his game myself on here or offer my thoughts on what he could or should do to improve further so you get both sides of the coin with me. The stuff that grates are the unsubstantiated or falsified stuff that is posted about him and when I try to defend against that I get labelled a fanboy or other stuff. I am like you and not sure if he will ever win a slam but even if he misses out I won't he heartbroken as he has already had a career that 99% of tennis players around the world could only dream of having .I am sure that if he never wins a slam he will go down as one of the best never to have did so. I am sure there will be more tears ahead for Andy but here's hoping they are tears of joy. Thanks again for the very kind words lags as they are much appreciated.

CC

I think - given his achievements to date and considering he has many playing years ahead of him - he would definitely go down as the best never to win a Slam. But I'm hoping he doesn't end his career with such a legacy.

I probably don't need to tell you that Murray's title count to date is 22. I chanced upon a bit of trivia a couple of weeks ago linking Brian Gottfried to Andy M.

Gottfried's career high was No. 3 and he is apparently the player who ended his career with the most titles to his name (25) but without ever winning a Slam.

Gottfried's titles were not of the same status as Murray's, and BG only made one Slam final (RG, in which he was comprehensively outplayed by clay supremo Vilas), which AM has of course already surpassed. But all that apart I am hopeful that AM doesn't take over this particular claim to fame ......

Yes I agree with that lags. Andy has achieved a lot that he can be proud of such as one of an elite band of players to reach the semis or better in every slam in a calendar year, I do believe he is in the top six most successful Masters Cup players of all-time and in top ten of best win percentage on hard court of all-time (I do believe). If he were to win a slam it wouldn't cut no ice with many who have already made up their mind they can't stand him as they would spout the same old rhetoric. I know it will be the case as Nadal still gets bucket loads of vitriol posted about him and he has won ten slams and on the old 606 site when Murray reached the 2010 Australian Open Final those with anti-Murray sentiments were lining up their excuses in the space between the semis and the final in case their nightmare came true. Those were stuff like it shouldn't count as a proper slam as he never beat one of the top set of players to get to the final or that they should wipe it clean from slate as a slam. That sort of nonsense so you see he is destined to have that sort of stuff posted about him but I will carry on backing him regardless.

1000s player of ATP have achieved that millions of other aspiring players struggling to even make any bit mark would. They all can be proud of an elite band of players in someway or the other. They all can be celebrated with their whatever little achievements. That way no player in ATP deserves to be discussed in any other light except praising how great they have achieved compared to million others.

I'm not sure about others, but I'm not here on 606v2 to do this. I'm here to discuss tennis, players, their strengths, their weaknesses, playing equipment, how the game has changed etc.. Its lot more than keep distributing credits to player just because who ever he/she may be and whatever little he/she has achieved, there will always be millions who will be still behind him/her. I'm among the top-3 players in my club who has won tournaments at my club level, there are million who haven't even achieved this nor will ever. Now how about discussing how is my achievement on a discussion an international forum.

Just because a player won slams, doesn't mean he becomes bigger than the game and his critic must lay silent. Just because he won some slams doesn't mean his game must not be discussed. Just because he won some slams doesn't mean nothing can be said against him even if he does wrong. You may feel too obliged to such a player that you may not like to speak anything other than praising him and his game, but others don't have to feel that way.

Those who do not feel that way don't become his "hatahs" and what they say doesn't automatically become nonsense. If you think they talk nonsense, explain how, thats the point of a debate.

I do believe I explained why I thought it was nonsense in last post as in on 606 people posted stuff in 2010 before the Australian Open Final like if Murray won it should not rate as a slam win because of who he beat to get there or that it would have been a devalued win. Now that is nonsense.

CaledonianCraig wrote:on 606 people posted stuff in 2010 before the Australian Open Final like if Murray won it should not rate as a slam win because of who he beat to get there or that it would have been a devalued win. Now that is nonsense.

Yes of course it is nonsense CC - such nonsense that it is not worth remembering or paying attention to.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Now how about discussing how is my achievement on a discussion an international forum.

.................................................................................................................................................

Hmm.....interesting suggestion raiders !

Maybe a whole new forum needed ?

Best of luck with that little project......

lags72 wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Now how about discussing how is my achievement on a discussion an international forum.

.................................................................................................................................................

Hmm.....interesting suggestion raiders !

Maybe a whole new forum needed ?

Best of luck with that little project......

well, if you are humble and a great person, plus wear tight jeans.....

Yes time please but it is this such nonsense that does continue to rear its head and will do so again when a similar time or situation arises. Those are the close-minded people I have talked of who have made up their mind to hold grudges against players and will not change. Those are the lost causes of this world that do not merit my time discussing things with them.

CaledonianCraig

What do you think about Murray losing to Garcia Lopez and doing all that thinking? Are you interested in what he had to say? Or are you only interested in the technical aspects of the game? What I like about tennis is that it's more complex than that and what happens off the court can affect what happens on the court. IMO it's relevant to discuss what a player says and how they choose to present themselves.

Do you think when a player wins we should all come here and simply say "He played brilliant it was a great match" and when a player loses say "He had a bad day I'm sure he will win next time"? Because anything else will involve a degree of criticism.

I have already offered my thoughts on the Garcia-Lopez loss but for you again. In the grand scheme of things it is no big deal. Disappointing that he couldn't fill his boots with ranking points that were up for grabs but that is it. He happened to face a player who hit the ground-running and is no mug as he has been as high as 23 in the rankings. I never saw the match so can't judge what did or did not happen from Andy's point of view but it does make the Miami Open slightly more important now for Andy to get back on track. Another deep run in the tournament and he will be going into the clay court season on a much higher level of confidence than he did last year.

He happened to face a player who hit the ground-running

My question would be why can't Murray hit the ground running and why does he rely on making it a spar match than just going for some winners. Is it because he's unconfident? Weak in the mind?

Murray often hits the ground running but not on this occasion.

Beaten by the better player on the day and guess what it does happen a lot in tennis to every player.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Murray often hits the ground running but not on this occasion.

Not in terms of winning quickly unless he plays a serve volleyer he will play a boring grinding 2 hours. Winning ugly should be a rarity with the talent he has but he makes it a regularity of outlasting and being defensive when he could stroll through opening matches. I get the impression Murray would be happy to stay as number 4/3 than win a slam cause his game never changes unless his opponent allows him to.

In your opinion that is. I would say that I did say around the US Open last year I made the point about him needing to be more aggressive at the start of tournaments and his approach has definitely been more aggressive this year. If you haven't noticed it then there are many that have.

The Touch of Defeat traced to Andy Murray

Murray loses to Garcia-Lopez in Rnd 2 (straight Sets)
Garcia-Lopez loses to Harrison in Rnd 3 (straight Sets)
Harrison loses to G Simon in Rnd 4
Simon loses to J Isner in Quarter-Finals
J Isner plays Djokovic in Semi-Finals ...

So if Djokovic loses in the final Murray gets the tournament wooden spoon!