Andy Murray to win a Grand Slam title in the next four years?

Andy Murray has just turned 25 (May 15th was his birthday). In four years time he will be 29 and he would have had 16 opportunities to win a grand slam title (four French Open opportunities, four wimbledon opportunities etc). His past 16 grand slam events has resulted in the following returns:

Maximum Progress
Wins: zero
Finals: three
SF: six
QF: two
4R: two
3R: two
2R: zero
1R: zero
Absent: zero

What do you think the chances are of Murray winning a slam in the next four years?

I don't know, but I do know that it makes me tired thinking about it. There is just too much effort required considering his game, and no joy at all

bogbrush wrote:I don't know, but I do know that it makes me tired thinking about it. There is just too much effort required considering his game, and no joy at all

Yep, I am thinking along those lines.

Maybe he's trying to grind us all into a state of suspended misery from which we won't be putting him under endless pressure to win a slam - so far since 2008 it's been groundhog day following Andy's progress.

NS: can you please modify the poll, adding a 110% option, so that I too finally can vote. thks

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:NS: can you please modify the poll, adding a 110% option, so that I too finally can vote. thks

It was a struggle, but I managed

Nore Staat

I don't like being critical but you could have saved yourself a bit of typing and the results might have been a little easier to interpret if you had limited the poll to two options. Yes or No.

I would say 1 is not out of his reach. He has wasted so much time doing the same thing over and over and it is a habit that has stuck since his Maclaghan days. For me the serve much better under Gilbert.

Look at the others around him. All made some changes or adjustments. Nadal added more zip on the serve and had his best year. Djokovic became more aggressive and improved his first and second serve. Federer adopted the drop shot and again went to the serve and volley more. What has Murray done? He needs change.

HE - maybe I should have split it into 20% intervals.

LK: My view is it is down to mentality rather than innate talent - surrounding himself with yes man - not obviously willing to take advice - his brother said in the past it's like treading on egg shells when your around him. I think most followers of Murray know what he needs to do to improve but he tends not do those things - spending more of his time pulling weights in the gym etc. With Tim Henman you always had the impression he was getting the most out of his talent, but with Andy Murray one suspects he could do / have done more. Others have questioned Murrays passion for the game, maybe thats the ultimate decider.

I am now wondering where the other Brit male tennis players are that Roger Draper promised us. It's not clear whether Laura or Heather are going to be top twenty players on the womens side.

On a separate matter: tribute to someone who has just passed on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljxm3NsnVI0&feature=related

Well NS it does relate to the article I posted about his un-willingness to consider any form of change. With Henman he was on an upward curve and despite some bumps I think he over-achieved for the talent he had.

For me it seems Andy wants the glory in the most half-arsed way possible.

I think it is more down to stubborness more than anything. Now it may be that he never wins a slam who knows. The thing that fans can take heart from is that there are elements of his game that could be improved greatly, His second serve of course, his focus, his approach to key points in matches and his bouts of passiveness for starters. If he can address even three out of four of those issues then I'd fancy his chances of winning a slam. I voted 40-49% due to the titans of the game that stand in his way and the crucial flaws he must try to address. Immense talent but needs the rough edges smoothing off.

Oh Craig lets not try to smuggle in the idea he only doesn't get one because of the 'titans of the game', he has serious deficiencies. He'd not win a Slam while Lendl, Connors, Sampras, Agassi or Borg were around either. That pretty much takes care of the last 40 years.

It's far worse than smoothing off some rough edges. He has a ridiculously poor second serve and a technically deficient forehand. I like the guy but how long is this going to keep being put down to a few tweaks?

You can look at it whatever way you want bogbrush but tells me this. Do you honestly think one slam wonders of the past such as Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich etc etc etc would have won a slam playing against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic over the same period? Yes I know conditions have changed but when they played on a level playing field in their own time they were one slam wonders.

Krajicek beat Mal Washington to win his slam.

Stich beat Becker (yes a great player but in the same top notch category as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic)?

There are many other instances like this that I could point to. Now if you wish to belittle Federer and Nadal as all-time greats quite likely above players in the past then that is your look out.

On 90's grass Stich was a monster. Same for '96 Krajicek (who beat Sampras, by the way).

This state Murrays game is in now isn't Slam winning standard at all. I don't know why, but he seems to make no progress at all. Hiding behind the top 3 is more bad news for Murray as its obscuring the truth.

He was a better player in 2008/9. I'm not being contrary for the sake of it, he needs some parts of his game being rebuilt from scratch.

Was he though? After all from the beginning of his career those that choose to belittle him as a player have one thing they have forever clung to as evidence of some sort of mediocrity - no slam wins. Well if these people care to use slams as the yardstick well let us do that now.

Andy Murray 2008 Slam Record:-

AUS Open - 1st Round exit
French Open - 3rd Round exit
Wimbledon - Quarter-Final exit
US Open - Finalist

Andy Murray 2009 Slam Record:-

AUS Open - 4th Round exit
French Open - Quarter-Final exit
Wimbledon - Semi-Final exit
US Open - 3rd Round exit

Compare that with (from 2011 onwards):-

AUS Open - Finalist
French Open - Semi-Final exit
Wimbledon - Semi-Final exit
US Open - Semi-Final exit
2012 AUS Open - Semi-Final exit

No comparison there is there. Of course he has flaws in his game as have been tapped on in a number of threads and will he ever win a slam? Maybe not or maybe yes. But it is certainly no disgrace to say you were denied by Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.

Once Andy went down the "muscle" route the finesse and Mecir-like quirks in his game got blunted along the way too. Now he's too much of an up and down player IMO (which works well against non-top 4 admittedly) whereas before he used to make people play balls they didnt like, moved them around using fine angles and finished off points often at the net. In short, he tried to become Nadal (who I think he inwardly idolises) but the problem is he's not Nadal and never will be. Its like he sold his soul to the 'muscle god' but now he's starting to get caught out through lack of variety (people start to suss out his game more) and those technical deficiences still exist too which hold him back. He could have been spending more time on those than benchpressing and doing Rocky routines. For me, he seems further away from beating the top 3 than ever before...ok he's getting good results still but most in the business end of majors he's getting picked off quite easily besides AO12.

Agree Stich was a grass monster...a guy with real weapons (top drawer serve, BH and volleys). Krajicek lost alot of fire after that Wimbledon win and had alot of injuries too but that said in '96 at SW19 he was unplayable. His serve was a complete monster..probably >145mph by todays standards but he also got enormous movement on it as well. Mal Washington should never have got to that final of course...wasnt Todd Martin 5-0 up in the 5th in the semi only to lose?

And so is Mal Washington a tougher opponent to face in a final than Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic who Andy Murray has had to overcome in a final?

I had it as 40-49% too.

Personally, I am not into speculating what Murray may or may not have done with the wooden rackets and faster surfaces of the past, I am only interested in what Murray may be doing in the next few years. I also would like to see some other British players coming through and challenging for slam titles in the next four years (as promised by Draper). It's been a long time since we had two British male players in the top 100 ...

He looked more of a threat back then; beat fully fit Nadal in a semi, was unlucky not to get the 3rd set in the final gainst Federer.

He can play alright, it just seems so lacking compared to the player who believed he was the real #1 back then.

And drop it with Washington, the real final that year was in the quarters when he beat Sampras.

I remember players said they didn't like playing Murray because of his variation in pace, I remember he used to rally and then suddenly he would change the pace for an outright winner.

I suppose he needed to adapt his play when others players learnt how to play Murray, but with Murray the technical issue in his serve and the lack of mental focus during the match, became a continual feature. With regard to his forearm, this does seem to be fine from time to time. Maybe it has something to do with a tendency to go defensive.

bogbrush that is the point though is it not. You say 'he can play alright' in a present tense that is agreed. He has flaws in his game that need ironing/sorting out and if that can be achieved then can you tell me honestly that he will not be a far more potent force? His second serve is like a millstone around his neck as are the bouts of passiveness and mental lapses. All in all it is akin to putting two sack of potatoes on his back whilst Federer, Djokovic and Nadal don't have that baggage. It is not about talent for Andy - that is there as any tennis expert will testify. Its frustrating but that is the way it is.

As for Washington how can I drop it? Sure he beat Sampras but so what? Tsonga beat Federer at Wimbledon last year but is by no means a barometer on those two players talents is it? Look deeper at Mal's record and you will find that he never progressed beyond a quarter-final at any other slam in his career and his next best performance at Wimbledon after this final - he never got any further than the Second Round. Does that scream quality to you?

This state Murrays game is in now isn't Slam winning standard at all. I don't know why, but he seems to make no progress at all. Hiding behind the top 3 is more bad news for Murray as its obscuring the truth.

He was a better player in 2008/9. I'm not being contrary for the sake of it, he needs some parts of his game being rebuilt from scratch.

As brutal as this is, there is so much of it that is true.

Highlighted in bold is very much the cold light of day truth.

The latter I very much agree with. Re-building some aspects of his game beginning with the serve and fine tuning that forehand would not go a miss.

We have to stop comparing Andy to the top 3 as he's simply not in their league. The problem is he needs to beat 1 or 2 of them to win a major. Outside he's getting to semis pretty often as his #4 seed dictates so no complaints. On clay its a different kettle of fish and we cant really expect him to generally get beyond QFs there.

The problem is if we discount him relying on luck to win a major, just how is he going to beat Nadal, Federer or Djokovic when so far he's not able to?
(I think the win against Nadal in 2008 was actually an anomaly due to Nadal's mental then physical exhaustion from winning FO, SW19, etc but I know others wont agree - many of Murray's wins over Nadal involve an injury to Rafa...but that aside the H2H is so far in Nadal's its all almost a moot point anyway).

Against those 3, if he's bowling in the 2nd serve he's going to get annihilated. He's also prone to lapses of concentration mid-matches, and gets down on himself too easily. He can work on all these things but it is alot of things to overcome...and there are other things too like the FH mentioned by others, and a reduced use of variety in my book. Again, this is all relative to the top 3...I still feel he's almost relying on some swing of luck to allow him to not only get to a final but win it too as on balance I dont see him beating the top 3 in slam final anywhere near as yet.

I see 0%, i dont see any indication of him playing aggressive tennis to win 7 best of 5 against top players.

Tis true lydian.

The comparisons have to stop and also settling for being in aura of what the other 3 have achieved. Simply Andy needs to up his game and his standards.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sure he beat Sampras but so what?

Really? 'so what' that he beat the guy who won Wimbledon the 4 years before and the 3 years after?
Slams are not just about who you play in the final, you have to win 7 matches.
Krijacek was unbelievable that year and played at a standard that could win a slam against anyone past or present. Sadly, I've never felt that about Murray. Part of it may be the players he's up against, but part of it is just that he's never (yet) played 2 weeks' worth of slam-winning tennis. And maybe part of it is me not wanting to get my hopes up.

You can't deny facts lk. Roger Federer widely regarded as the greatest player of all-time (yes above Sampras as well), Rafael Nadal widely regarded as the greatest clay courter of all-time (yes above Bjorn Borg) and to top that off the world No.1 Novak Djokovic who has been on a roll of late in the slams. That is what Andy has in his way and there is no avoiding that. That task is hard enough but add in the flaws Andy has such as woeful second serve, mental lapses and bouts of passiveness and then we see why he hasn't won a slam. It is by no means a mystery.

Kraijcek was tipped for many Slams and unfortunately fell to injuries. That 1996 campaign he was un-beatable.

Apart from the two wins against Nadal, the other times he has played the top three he seems to have lost more due to his "lack of fight" and "passivity" ... except for AO2012, the semi-final. There I thought his mental attitude was generally great and it was only the technical deficiency in the serve that ultimately led him to lose.

So it seems to me that with Lendl at his side he is likely to maintain that right mental attitude when playing the top three, then it will be just a question of improving his serve, which I think is the key technical weakness. His movement and return game are generally excellent.

Craig,

It's not the facts I am concerned about. It seems your quite content to accept that Andy has reached his top level. Others want to see signs of improvement which they feel will come with change.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sure he beat Sampras but so what?

Really? 'so what' that he beat the guy who won Wimbledon the 4 years before and the 3 years after?
Slams are not just about who you play in the final, you have to win 7 matches.
Krijacek was unbelievable that year and played at a standard that could win a slam against anyone past or present. Sadly, I've never felt that about Murray. Part of it may be the players he's up against, but part of it is just that he's never (yet) played 2 weeks' worth of slam-winning tennis. And maybe part of it is me not wanting to get my hopes up.

I can agree with the latter half of that JHM but please don't tell me that Krajicek would have played Mal Washington in this day and age in the final. He scored in facing a player that had his one big moment of his tennis career in reaching a slam final and was never seen anywhere near there again. Perhaps that is what Andy needs as well to reach a final playing not one of the top three players in the world but the difference being the consistency of the top players in the world today they are metronomical.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Craig,

It's not the facts I am concerned about. It seems your quite content to accept that Andy has reached his top level. Others want to see signs of improvement which they feel will come with change.

No I have said time and again on this thread there are flaws in his game that need addressing so that isn't any sort of contentment. As for seeing signs of improvement can I ask what qualifies as improvement? As if we are talking about slam record then in the last year or so that has improved immensely so it isn't all the doom and gloom people will paint it as. His serve needs addressing (second serve in particular), he needs to be more consistently aggressive, cut out these mental lapses or moments of slackness and eliminate passiveness from his game as much as possible.

Craig,

Do results tell the truth of Andy's serving or points won on his FH? No they don't. What quantifies as improvement is consistent match statistics on his serve.

CaledonianCraig wrote:bogbrush that is the point though is it not. You say 'he can play alright' in a present tense that is agreed. He has flaws in his game that need ironing/sorting out and if that can be achieved then can you tell me honestly that he will not be a far more potent force? His second serve is like a millstone around his neck as are the bouts of passiveness and mental lapses. All in all it is akin to putting two sack of potatoes on his back whilst Federer, Djokovic and Nadal don't have that baggage. It is not about talent for Andy - that is there as any tennis expert will testify. Its frustrating but that is the way it is.

As for Washington how can I drop it? Sure he beat Sampras but so what? Tsonga beat Federer at Wimbledon last year but is by no means a barometer on those two players talents is it? Look deeper at Mal's record and you will find that he never progressed beyond a quarter-final at any other slam in his career and his next best performance at Wimbledon after this final - he never got any further than the Second Round. Does that scream quality to you?

Mal didn't beat Sampras, Krajicek did.

Yes lk I understand that and is why I did say work needs doing on his serve plus other parts of his game. The point is though in the last year he has consistently been at the business end in slams and surely if he can maintain that and address the slack areas of the game then he could be in business. A lot of ifs and buts I know but I'd sooner he was making the slam semis than not.

Yes he's at the business end...but its a case of so close, yet so far. He's a mile away from beating the top 3 in a slam final yet. If anything they're pulling away from him. The problem for Murray is this...even if he corrects all those deficiencies I still dont see him beating the top 3 if they're 90% of their usual game.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:bogbrush that is the point though is it not. You say 'he can play alright' in a present tense that is agreed. He has flaws in his game that need ironing/sorting out and if that can be achieved then can you tell me honestly that he will not be a far more potent force? His second serve is like a millstone around his neck as are the bouts of passiveness and mental lapses. All in all it is akin to putting two sack of potatoes on his back whilst Federer, Djokovic and Nadal don't have that baggage. It is not about talent for Andy - that is there as any tennis expert will testify. Its frustrating but that is the way it is.

As for Washington how can I drop it? Sure he beat Sampras but so what? Tsonga beat Federer at Wimbledon last year but is by no means a barometer on those two players talents is it? Look deeper at Mal's record and you will find that he never progressed beyond a quarter-final at any other slam in his career and his next best performance at Wimbledon after this final - he never got any further than the Second Round. Does that scream quality to you?

Mal didn't beat Sampras, Krajicek did.

But point is if we can put this another way. Mal Washington reached one final in which Krajicek beat him to win his only slam final. Yes he beat Sampras along the way and fair play to him for that but Washington in the final is hardly what you would call a mightily tough opponent to break your slam duck. On the other hand Murray had to beat another legend of the game in Nadal in one semi and then was faced with an even bigger legend in Roger Federer in the final. A much tougher ask in my eyes.

Craig,

Has Andy ever served above 60% for 4 consecutive matches in a BO5 or BO3? My guess is not.

2011 yes was a good year, but look at the field. Dolgopolov at the AO in the quarters, the only un-seeded player left. FO Berrer, Chela, Troicki. Wimbledon Ljubicic, Gasquet, Lopez. US Open Young, Isner. These are guys you can beat with serving % below 60.

I don't want to go around the whole results don't lie. Match stats don't lie and nor do rankings.

lydian wrote:Yes he's at the business end...but its a case of so close, yet so far. He's a mile away from beating the top 3 in a slam final yet. If anything they're pulling away from him. The problem for Murray is this...even if he corrects all those deficiencies I still dont see him beating the top 3 if they're 90% of their usual game.

The thing is it is better that he is banging on the door though than having mundane First, Second or Third Round exits. Sure he has a long way to go but the talent is there it is just those flaws that need addressing. If those can be addressed it will go a long way to making him far more competitive in the final if he gets there.

Please stop picking on Caladonian Craig. It's not nice to watch. Murray may just win a slam...

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sure he beat Sampras but so what?

Really? 'so what' that he beat the guy who won Wimbledon the 4 years before and the 3 years after?
Slams are not just about who you play in the final, you have to win 7 matches.
Krijacek was unbelievable that year and played at a standard that could win a slam against anyone past or present. Sadly, I've never felt that about Murray. Part of it may be the players he's up against, but part of it is just that he's never (yet) played 2 weeks' worth of slam-winning tennis. And maybe part of it is me not wanting to get my hopes up.

I can agree with the latter half of that JHM but please don't tell me that Krajicek would have played Mal Washington in this day and age in the final. He scored in facing a player that had his one big moment of his tennis career in reaching a slam final and was never seen anywhere near there again. Perhaps that is what Andy needs as well to reach a final playing not one of the top three players in the world but the difference being the consistency of the top players in the world today they are metronomical.

Maybe that is what Andy needs. I don't think Krajicek needed that. He would have taken out anybody, the way he was playing. He beat Stich and Sampras, on grass, without losing a set.

Now you are taking the pee HE

No-one is picking on anyone. BB, lydian, NS like me want Murray to win a Slam. I think their points have been very valid. Murray turning 25 means for me he is at a point in his career where really needs to make it happen at the Slams. A different approach is all that is being suggested.

He may or may not. Is it a shootable offence if he doesn't? Of course not. He may have self regrets if that is how things end up but he'll retire as the best British male player since Fred Perry and with a haul of titles many top pros would love to have.

I went for the range 0 - 9 %. In my view Murray has chances left , but at this stage of his career no more than 10%. Statistical evidence based on the past also says so.

Murray imo has around 4 to 5 % odds circa to win a slam at each slam event he takes part. This would mean that every 20 -25 events played he would likely win one, but it also means he could win two or zero in as much as 40 slams.

Overall it means he holds fairly small odds to win in any of the slams he takes part. This is the consequence, imo, that he doesn't have a real competitive advantage over the top competitors. Others like the before mentioned Stich and Krjicek were big servers and top specialist on the hard courts.

It is not a shootable offence Craig.

When we reflect on Tim what do most people always say? Should've won Wimbledon in 2001.

You look at Andy like many pundits have and fans have and think how has this guy not won a Slam because he has the game to compete. Whilst that is an achievement, many pundits and fans feel that Andy is holding himself back because they know he can go one step further than just competing and when it goes right for him he can beat the top players.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The thing is it is better that he is banging on the door though than having mundane First, Second or Third Round exits. Sure he has a long way to go but the talent is there it is just those flaws that need addressing. If those can be addressed it will go a long way to making him far more competitive in the final if he gets there.

Isnt this kind of stating the obvious though? He's 4 in the world and has been for a while...so yes he should be knocking on the door of most events. Yes Murray has talent...but so have the others too. But I think you are thinking that if Murray corrects his flaws then a slam will waltz his way. Thats a big IF though when there are so many of them. And its a big IF that they would be good enough to win a slam once corrected. I think he can perhaps get to the odd slam final if he can improve a few things...but to win a slam he's going to have to go toe to toe with one of the legends for 3+ hours in a final with all the pressure on him to break through. Its a massive ask and the longer time goes on the more I think he's just not mentally up to the task.

No it isn't really stating the obvious. Being ranked number four in the world doesn't get you a bye through to the semis. Heck I bet I could find past players who reached No.1 in the world and don't have as good a slam record as Murray. Granted you don't see him winning a slam and you mat/may not be right but only time will tell.

Murray has a decent slam record...granted...but we're talking about winning one here. Thats a huge difference.
I think he has a 10-20% chance personally...and I think he has plenty of talent to do it but he needs a) to correct fundamental flaws on FH and 2nd serve, b) a good draw, c) one of the top 3 to fall before the SF.

But as others have said, I dont see Murray having the type of guns to do a "Krajicek in 96"...he's going to have to grind a slam out the hard way...the problem is there are 3 guys who have proven they can also do it...slam in, slam out. Its just a really big ask CC, not impossible, but a massive ask.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:... Murray imo has around 4 to 5 % odds circa to win a slam at each slam event he takes part. This would mean that every 20 -25 events played he would likely win one, but it also means he could win two or zero in as much as 40 slams. ...

4 to 5 % odds for a win at each slam, corresponds to odds of 16 x (4 to 5%) = 64 to 80 % for at least one win in 16 slams. If we take out the French Open (i.e. 0% chance of winning), then we would get 12 x ... corresponding to 48 to 60% chance.