I Am Trying My jubblies Off - Bingo!

Andy your a Muppet.

Glad to get that off my chest.

Another Clay season over for Murray and RG this year and last have shown me something. There are things in his locker that we are just not seeing. It begs the question, is Andy playing the tennis he wants to?

When he burst on to the scene, so much was made about the lack of fitness. For me so much was made of turning that weakness into a strength. It was almost decided that he should be counter puncher. It is like the life chosen for his game. The serve is crumbling around him. What works for others doesn't mean it does for you. Federer plays the way he wants to. Nadal does, Djokovic does, Ferrer does, Tsonga does, Dolgopolov does too. I feel with Andy that is not the case. Last year on Clay we saw shots, especially on his FH that added dimension. He has become so reliant on that BH that he has spent so much time making it un-breakable that weaker areas are becoming bigger weaknesses. The serve is right in the toilet. The BH slice is not used enough. His tactics are bewildering at the best of times.

On clay what I have seen is when he plays FH's or flatter BH's and comes in behind he turns away in some form of disgust like it should've been a play left in locker, when infact it is the right thing to do. I think all the effort that Andy puts in not being could be better spent put into being what he knows he can be. He can attack. Consolidation is the word today in most courts and in the Ferrer match it couldn't have been any further from the truth. Mrs LK asked me how someone so good can play so badly? She makes a really good point. Why can Andy play so terribly? How can he get matches so wrong? For me it comes from a conflict. The player he is and the player he wants to be are so far apart. His idol was Agassi. We all know how it ended. Earlier in his career he had the game, but was falling short. He chased glory. He turned to Gilbert and became something much more solid on court, but was not the player he wanted to be. From that 1991-1999 period he was player conjured by calculation. Only after turning to Cahill that he started play a much more relaxed game and enjoyed success. When you look at Murray's coaches: Petchy, Gilbert, Maclaghan, Corretja and now Lendl. Are these coaches Murray has enjoyed working with?

I just think all the time Andy thinks about what he is not doing right to what he isn't doing will plague his game. The FH can be developed. It is not all lost. I just hope Lendl can help Andy tune himself into his game. Lendl was a strict disciplinarian. I am hoping that now as a coach maybe he can help Andy tune into the soul of his game. Today he looked restricted, when a far more relaxed player may have won through. Andy is a talent. It is just a case of what does he want out of it and what does he want to do with it.

Great post

His best chance of winning a slam this year is USO IMHO.

His game is very tainted. He's physically too awkward to try and play rallies with the best of them. When he got to slam final in 2008 I was certain he was going to win a few, he was trying to go for winners today because he knows Ferrer will be beating him on rallies. DP didn't venture into rallying/defensive tennis and it won him a slam.

LK, look at my post on BB serve thread...I just posted serve speeds...and is it any wonder the top players are killing him if his 1st serve isnt anywhere over at least 60%.

The problem he has is that there is such a huge difference between his 1st and 2nd deliveries which speaks to a completely different technique for both...this is a fundamental technical flaw that I'm amazed hasnt been addressed years ago.

I repeat...3 out of 4 of the women who played today served faster 2nd serves than him! (the other wasnt much slower)

lydian,

I don't think it is just the serve that is killing him. Take Nadal who has the slowest first serve out of the top 4.

For me he needs to let the FH out the bag. Use the BH slice more. Don't depend so much on the BH.

Yes its not just serve LK...but its the serve that is MOST bothering him...hence why he commented on it to his box. He didnt comment on his FH or slice. He knows his 2nd serve is a liability and its eating his confidence and making the rest if his game suffer.

Nadal's serve is still a decent speed - and his average 1st serve speed was the same as Murray's today. Nadal also uses more variety, spin and slice.

His FH does look some pop at times and I think he has grip issues whilst playing it - he tops many into the net suggesting he's either not following through properly or he's stuck between western and semi-western grips at times when pushed.

lydian,

The serve completely died. He only seemed confident of serving out wide. It was sad to see match that he could've easily won turn out into a match of free gifts.

I think his whole game in general is in a transition phase.

Just to expand...I believe he used to have a western grip (he trained on clay at Barcelona and reverted to this grip...ubiquitous clay grip), but it caused him wrist issues, so he's moved to a more semi-western grip so it places less strain on the wrist. The problem is that at times he seems to get betwixt and between W and SW...and ends up topping the ball into the net. I think he has similar issues on serve...using different techniques on 1st vs 2nd. In a way this all gives him loads of variety...but too much, and it leads to inconsistency, and on 2nd serve a slow hit....exacerbated by not throwing it forwards enough and far too much to the left also.

This serving positioning is one of the reasons I think he has back problems...just look at his back positioning when serving, it looks painful.

I didnt see the match LK but that doesnt surprise me given the way his game is constructed. His game is littered with instabilities...on one day it all clicks, on others it all breaks down. Guys like Nadal, Djoko and Fed dont have these technicality issues. Their grips/strokes/positionings are rock solid.

I think his serving action is inconsistent TBH. It is rushed through and it lacks rythym.

legendkillarV2

Get a grip! If somehow Murray had managed to scape a win out of Ferrer he would have just got thrashed by Rafa. Take a few deep breaths I'm sure you'll feel better tomorrow.

I think Courier and co had a point today, there was almost too much aggression! It was almost too flat at times. He made more errors because of it and in any case Ferrer seemed to struggle more when he played with a bit of height over the net, yet he rarely did.

In terms of where he is generally, I think we need to remember that this is clay and it is difficult for someone like Murray - who moves nowhere near as well on this surface - to execute an ultra aggressive game on clay. He is off balance way more often than on hard or grass, and that means he's going to make more errors.

I saw a lot to give me encouragement for Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows. For sure he'll need a higher percentage of first serves to beat any of the top 3, but if he executes the same aggression against any of them with a bit more success (which i'd expect him to do on those surfaces) then he'll have a great chance.

This result is not a shock, he has never beaten a top 10 player on clay apart from once (Davydenko i think) and never reached a final. Based on that, quarters and pushing a belter of a clay courter like Ferrer to 4 sets is not a bad result.

Decent French Open for Murray, and he seems determined to keep trying to hit through the forehand which is positive. It's either a great weapon or leaks errors at the moment, with no in-between but the only way its going to get more consistent is by him to keep backing it.

Djokovic was in a similar spot in 2010 and he then decided on becoming more aggressive and he used the BH down the line as a way to control points. It has worked a treat. He has managed shorten points and win them and that is why he has developed an more all round game.

hawkeye wrote:legendkillarV2

Get a grip! If somehow Murray had managed to scape a win out of Ferrer he would have just got thrashed by Rafa. Take a few deep breaths I'm sure you'll feel better tomorrow.

Oh shut up wally!

Thrashed?? Doubt that!

Danny,

The issue at hand is the passages of play on Clay that we never see on other surfaces. The play he produces could easily turn performances on Grass/HC into success

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think his serving action is inconsistent TBH. It is rushed through and it lacks rythym.

That's very true LK. It is a motion of many moving body parts, and its almost like no 2 serves are the same. So different from the regimented serving action from Roger for example.

I would like to see him take 5-10mph hour off it to get the percentages up to be honest. But I don't think he sees that as the way to go.

The issue at hand is the passages of play on Clay that we never see on other surfaces. The play he produces could easily turn performances on Grass/HC into success

Indeed. The exact performance he produced today would have beaten almost every player on a hard court. I just don't think he'll ever move well enough to be a big threat on clay. I mean, he moved ok today but he still was off balance on so many errors, which doesn't happen on other surfaces.

I'm not too downbeat, I think he'll go really close at Wimbledon and I think we could have the first Brit in a final for 1000 years!

legendkillarV2 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:legendkillarV2

Get a grip! If somehow Murray had managed to scape a win out of Ferrer he would have just got thrashed by Rafa. Take a few deep breaths I'm sure you'll feel better tomorrow.

Oh shut up wally!

Thrashed?? Doubt that!

Oh ok... I was trying to be nice.

hawkeye wrote:legendkillarV2

Get a grip! If somehow Murray had managed to scape a win out of Ferrer he would have just got thrashed by Rafa. Take a few deep breaths I'm sure you'll feel better tomorrow.

No offence Hawkeye but I feel (even as a Nadal fan) you are quite harsh on Murray. Can you tell me honestly, Nadal fan to Nadal fan, how much of Murray do you watch. You read a lot of articles about him, this I applaud, but I watch a lot of Murray matches and find some of your remarks about him unfair and relatively inaccurate.

It Must Be Love

I don't profess to be an expert although I do read about him. Much of the media coverage of tennis in this country revolves around him so it'd difficult to miss. I have seen enough of Murray's game to have an opinion of how he plays. Isn't that what we're here for? If you think I'm being unfair or inaccurate please point it out.

Very solid point Danny about the movement, guys like Nadal, Ferrer, Djokovic, Almagro use the slide to perfection. Andy playing BH to BH is never going to be enough to beat Ferrer. He should look at Federer for example of how to succeed on clay without that quick zip on the clay and use pentertrating groundstrokes. Use the slice and use the FH. He doesn't have that precision but it is a start. He must start to ask how players like Berdych and Del Potro have surpassed him on clay given they are not quick movers.

It's called the 'Californian slide', where the players slides AFTER he's hit the ball, not into the strike.

Murray does that, which means he's moving away from recovery. It's fatal on clay.

Hence why he is dire coming into the net on the slide. I totally forgot the Californian Slide. BB

Guys you should all lay off Murray. After all he has been badly hampered during this French Open with a bad back.

Ferrer was on fire in the latter part of set 3, then after that Murray just fizzed out and brought his dunce tennis to the court. Bellucci beat Ferrer pretty comfortably in MC, Monfils beat Ferrer at RG. Those 2 have clearly dedicated a lot of time to their 1st and 2nd serves, something that is alien to Andy.

Working on serves does not mean power and hitting lines, Ferrer doesnt do either but he's consistently getting on top, Andy doesn't know how to. I suppose if Andy DID go at it on both his serves it would blunt his baseline game, but he needs a better balance.

bogbrush wrote:It's called the 'Californian slide', where the players slides AFTER he's hit the ball, not into the strike.

Murray does that, which means he's moving away from recovery. It's fatal on clay.

Brad Gilbert was on ESPN and made the same comment. Lendl being such a wonderful clay student and player, would have made certain Murray knows such things. OTOH, Mr Ferrer, does it very nicely.

gboycottnut wrote:Guys you should all lay off Murray. After all he has been badly hampered during this French Open with a bad back.

Very true. As a Murray fan, if someone had offered me quarter finals before the tournament I'd have taken it. Murray isn't a great clay player. He's a great hard court player and a very good grass player. His season and his career will not be defined by Roland Garros, it will be the 3 other slams.

Hopefully he can now get his back in good shape and put up a good challenge on the grass. I predict Britain will have it's first Wimbledon finalist in donkeys years in a few weeks time.

Gosh Danny, I wish I could share your optimism about Andy M getting to the Wimbledon final. Only likely to happen if one of the other three makes a shock early exit.
Alas, what it makes so difficult for Murray is that not only is he up against three really top-class players at the ranking summit, but these guys are so rarely going out early in ANY tournament.
Even Fed at this peak had some "comfortable" final and latter-stage opponents in the Slams (think Bjorkman, Gonzo, Phillipousis, Soderling).
Now, invariably, if you want to win a slam you have to get past one, or soemtimes two of the top four.
Chuck into the mix Murray's - still - poor mental approach and you are asking a great deal to see him even reaching a final let alone winning it.
It's only because Andy is AS GOOD AS HE IS that so much is written about his inability do even better. Can anyone put their hand on their heart and say he's gonna win a slam any time soon? Alas, no. But we live in hope and that's sometimes a hard thing to do.

SFP,

If Andy seriously took his Clay game and worked on the serve, he could win a Slam. He could win far more points on his FH. Doha proved this. In his encounter with Djokovic he 'cleverly' used the FH in points that he had nailed on. Wimbledon for me represents the 2nd best chance of Slam behind the Australian Open. His Clay game is the right direction. If Lendl could just enforce that belief on him that it is the right way then maybe more obvious improvements will grow from this.

SirFred - when Murray appointed Lendl, it was to win slams. Therefore the judgement on this was how he performed at slams he realistically had a chance of winning. For me, that's 3 per season. I can say with great confidence that Murray will never win the French open. He's simply not as good on clay, so as far as I'm concerned he should be measured at the other 3.

Only one of those 3 have been played, and in that slam semi he finally got the balance right. He was aggressive and pro-active. With a bit more courage on those 3 BP's he would have had that breakthrough victory we were all waiting for.

That same approach at SW19 will in my opinion get him to the final. Particularly if he is paired with Novak again. He has come in for some harsh criticism since losing to Ferrer, which surprises me a little. I'd have been genuinely shocked if he'd beaten Ferrer. A far more accomplished player on that surface than he is.

Danny. Take your points which have been well made. But surely Murray at 25 years of age with, by now, bags of experience behind him, should be intimidating players like Ferrer - even on their favourite surfaces.
OK, Rafa is the greatest clay courter ever. But see how poorly Ferrer plays against him today because he is overpowered mentally by him. Players don't get that feeling when they play Andy M, and it's that steeliness that Lendl has to try to instil in Murray. Alas, he's unlikely to be able to do it.

Ok so Im not a Murray fan (that we have established) but I do not buy into this Murray is not a clay court player. My belief is that Murray can/could play on all surfaces he has the game, and the talent as has been proven in the past. What Murray does not have is the mindset... over and over I have said that give Murray the belief, the confidence in his own abilities and he will win a slam.
He doesnt need a coach to teach him how to play tennis.. he does that so well himself.. every tool in the tool box. Now it needs someone to assist him mentally to remember that he has those tools. We all know he has the talent and ability so why doesnt he ??? and I dont think its a tennis coach that will teach him that. The difficulty is for him is that he has to keep picking himself up after every failure and try to analyse what he is doing so wrong ...Negative Negative.. when in fact he is doing so much right.. He has to learn how to build on the positives and that is in his head not on the court.

In this age of homogeniety all the top players can play on all surfaces...they arent having to adjust their games like their forebears did 15 years ago. Case in point is Tsonga. No way would a "Tsonga" have got as far as he did (almost semis) back in the 90s...but because we dont really have clay/grass/HC specialists anymore its almost a case of different week, same surface...ok, clay has dressing so sliding is a factor but speedwise Roland Garros is probably faster than Indian Wells, and not much slower than Wimbledon!

Therefore, Murray has no excuses...he's also embraced the muscle route, trained at Barcelona Tennis Academy for years and shown he can push the top guys on the surface last year e.g. (set off Nadal at MC). The surface isnt the problem, its what going on underneath his surface!

So agree Haddie...its the mind thats the main problem.... a problem in that he's not thinking about his game clearly. I guess its easier to curl more weights, drink more protein shakes, than sit down and analyse where you're going wrong.

It seems Murray is choosing the path of least resistance.

The main problem is his second serve - he is doing something which he needs to correct and until he does he can't trust it against the better opponents. If you can't trust something as important as your second serve you place yourself at a huge disadvantage.

If he could get that better, and add some consistency to his forehand the mental strength would follow becuase he'd have to spend much less time worrying about his major weaknesses. That's where he should start - of course it may mean some unpicking which makes him less effective whilst those shots are a 'work in progress' which is a huge risk for an uncertain reward.

I wonder if he's hoping that radical surgery can be avoided and 'one more heave' will do. It might, and radical surgery might do more harm than good, but the second serve and the forehand at the moment mean that he will need more luck to win a slam than the top three above him do (and everyone needs a bit).

When I say Murray isn't very good on this surface, what I essentially mean is he doesn't move well on this surface. He always looks laboured. Nadal seems to gain more traction on it. Federer floats on it. Someone like Ferrer looks comfortable on it. Murray doesn't.

I don't understand how it can argued that he isn't that good on clay. He has not far off 25 titles (off the top of my head) yet has never even reached a final on clay since turning pro. Apart from one match against Davydenko he has NEVER beaten a top 10 player on this surface. Whether it makes sense or not, this is a surface he's not very good on! That surely can't be argued.

That's why I will assess him at the other 3 slams, and not this one. He will never win RG. Looking at the stats above surely everyone agrees with that (whether you understand it or not) and that's why I will be judging him on the other 3.