Murray Still Thinks He May Win The French Open One Day

After Murray lost in the quarter finals today he had this to say

"You never know. Stranger things have happened," he said. "I think I would have had a good match with someone like [2004 Roland Garros
champion Gaston] Gaudio on the clay. And someone like Magnus Norman
[who reached he 2001 final], it is possible to win the event. But you
have to play your best tennis to do that; tonight I didn't."

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=18095&zoneid=25

Sigh! If only you could choose your opponant. I think Andy should get together with Roger I'm sure they could have some fun discussing this.

Hawkeye you really are obsessed with murray and his media pronouncements. Stranger things have happened in sports that is a correct statement. Maybe Andy is legitimately feeling a little hard done by how good, consistent, and dominant the three guys above him have been. It is a natural reaction and most likely a correct statement. So I really don't know why you believe it to be so controversial.

social1976

Well IMO he does say interesting things. I agree maybe Andy is feeling a little hard done by.

I think he could win it but he does himself no favours bad mouthing the achievements of previous champions by (yet again) trying to hint that he'd be a Slam winner if it just wasn't so dang difficult right now.

Someone needs to sit him down, explain that were he to have been born in 1980 he would have grown up with that periods training and equipment and he'd have his work cut out winning stuff, just like he does now. Hell, they might even point him to periods in the game where his running game and great stamina wouldn't get him to the second week of at least two of the Slams.

In fact maybe this is something Lendl might be minded to explain to him, for obvious reasons.

I am sorry Hawkeye but I'm not 100% sure I like the tone of these articles.
You obviously find interest in Murray's comments, which is completely fine, but you do post quite a lot on this topic. Also I find, having done a bit of research, that many of these articles share a sneering sarcastic tone, and apologies is this is a misinterpretation, but I feel many others also feel the same.

It's a real shame because you seem to be a really great poster, but these articles simply don't do you justice.

I don't mind Hawkeye bringing awareness to some of us on some of the comments/ interviews Murray makes, plus some of the comments on Murray made by former tennis players and correspondents. There is nothing specifically "wrong" with these articles. Yes they are selective but it is not as if it is made up. I generally find them interesting but I trust my mind to independently work out the mindset of players, commentators, former tennis players etc.

Basically I agree with Bogbush's comments on the matter. It also tells me that Murray hasn't fully matured with regard to his own mindset (IMO). He should be evaluating his own performance, thinking how he can improve, and thinking of the future. It may be a form of self-defense he has against the media with regard to them persistently asking why he didn't win etc, or it may be something he really believes in (perhaps a form of internal motivation).

hawkeye don't fret. Every time I post about Andy I get accused of being cynical and sarcastic too.

I just wish Andy would lighten up a little, chill out and stop berating his camp every time his second serve/forehand/whatever else gives him grief. The reality is win or lose today beating Nadal at the FO was at best highly unlikely, At least now he can lick his wounds, patch things up with Lendl and work out how to try and win one of Wimbledon the Olympics or US Open.

Well it is possible for non-clay court baseline ball-bashers and moon-ballers to reach the French Open final and win it. Rod Laver managed it in 1969, John McEnroe was very close in 1984 to winning, and Stefan Edberg whose game isn't at all suited to clay managed to reach the 1989 French Open Final. I also believe that the German serve and volleyer Michael Stich reached the 1996 French Open final.

I think most of the time Murray is berating himself. He might berate his team from time to time, but obviously not Lendl who would reply with his dead eye stare of his with the threat of a right booting to follow.

gboycottnut wrote:Well it is possible for non-clay court baseline ball-bashers and moon-ballers to reach the French Open final and win it. Rod Laver managed it in 1969, John McEnroe was very close in 1984 to winning, and Stefan Edberg whose game isn't at all suited to clay managed to reach the 1989 French Open Final. I also believe that the German serve and volleyer Michael Stich reached the 1996 French Open final.

Don't forget Noah.

Murray just puts pressure himself on to prove that he is a contender too, the fact is he can, but he has to take it easy , relax and work hard and wait for his opportunity to strike.

He could win the doubles

I have never known 1 player to receive so many articles on, with obvious scents of sarcasm and derision.








































Luckily it's only Andy so that's good with me.

legendkillarV2 wrote:He could win the doubles

Or play on until he is 45 so that he can enter the veteran's senior singles draw.

Another winnable match that Murray messed up on. I don't care what any Murray apologists say about how good Ferrer is it's another poor Murray showing at the highest level. Ferrer is good but he's not that good and Murray should be disposing of merely good players.

Gaudio's best performance of French 2004 was actually in the QFs and that display was way too good for Murray who would meekly allow Gaudio to run him all over the court the way he allowed Ferrer to do so today. Gaudio was pretty dominat of Hewitt that match and had him running everywhere.

For all of Murray's pronouncements of how he'd be a multi-slammer in eras gone by then since about the 90s I see him winning one and that's the Australian Open in 2002. And that is a huge maybe!

Of course Murray should say he can win it. That has to be the aim surely, even if he himself knows it's unlikely.

As for whether this is a poor result, well not for me. If clay had its own ranking Ferrer would be 4 or 5 and Murray would maybe just squeze into the top ten. Maybe.

He's not a great clay player! 1 win against a top ten player on clay EVER. Zero titles on clay ever. Zero finals reached on clay ever. If he goes out at the quarters at Wimbledon on New York, he deserves some criticism. But not on clay. Last year might well be the best he ever does at this slam.

I don't have any problem with hawkeye posting her views on murray. I think she spends an inordinate amount of energy on the subject but that is her choice and I do find them interesting. I don't see that big of a deal with his comments. I agree with them for the most part. It may not be politic to say it in the media, and maybe in regards to PR Andy could be wiser. But I mean I also don't want to see players just spew cliched boilerplate responses to every question. I don't think as some of stated that he was calling into question the accomplishments of other players. He was stating something that many others have said as well including past greats that this is a very tough era of grandslam competition. Both Mcenroe brothers are on record and every other legend they talk to mentions how high the level currently is. Andy was just discussing this view as it relates to him.

I'm glad some don't have a problem with me quoting what Murray said in a media interview. I'm sure Murray would expect people to read what he said as he is a famous tennis player.

Apparently (and this is completely off record as his PR team physically held him back as it would totally spoil his image) David Ferrer responded to Murray's claim by saying he would have won several French Open titles if he only had to play Andy Murray....

It's an arrogant load of garbage if he actually said that. He's pretty much denigrating the record and the level of those past champions. His record on clay doesn't have that much to do with the top 3. Even if they were absent, I'd still have my money on the likes of Ferrer, Del Potro, Berdych and Soderling taking him out. Hell, the likes of Almagro could beat him. The likes of Gonzalez who underachieved on clay also crushed him on it before retirement.

No mthierry he is not denigrating champions of the past - merely pointing out facts. Now you seem to want to fall into hawkeye's trap but read the article and can you tell me where he says he would have won the French Open in the past. He says he'd have given Gaudio a good match - a fair comment considering Murray has always been able to give any player a good match on a given day.

As to why he should rule out the possibility of ever winning the French Open I don't see that he should. After all he is twice a quarter-finalist and once a semi-finalist at RG so is no mug on the surface and ranked No.4 in the world. Nothing more to say on the subject so all those Murray critics should trot along.

Did anyone see Murray saying to the press "I need to get fitter" and think...oh, oh, that's not what he needs to do - he needs to play smarter and use the tools he has better as well as develop the serve and FH?

Well he did also say he felt out of breath after rallies so naturally he will feel he has to get fitter as anybody would.

What's revealing is that it tends to suggest that Murray thinks a bit too much like a fan - you'll often hear people on these boards saying that he's got a good chance of winning a slam but that draw probably needs to fall for him to do it.

Fans can afford to think and analyse like that, but not players. It's probably the sort of thing that Lendl needs to work on.

Why on Earth does Murray need to get fitter? If he had better technique on some shots perhaps he wouldn't have to be retrieving all the time.

The guy s super-fit. On TV yesterday Brad Gibert said if it went to five he'd back Murrys fitness over Ferrers.

Work on the weaknesses, not the strengths.

Well if Lendl was brought in to toughen Murray's mental approach, he aint doing much of a job. Andy needs to:
:: Stop berating himself on court
:: Stop looking so hang dog
:: Stop holding his back
:: Stop having the mental fragility of a child
:: Believe in himself.

sirfredperry wrote:Well if Lendl was brought in to toughen Murray's mental approach, he aint doing much of a job. Andy needs to:
:: Stop berating himself on court
:: Stop looking so hang dog
:: Stop holding his back
:: Stop having the mental fragility of a child
:: Believe in himself.

Ah sfp.

First up I think he will always berate himself on court and to a certain degree all players do it anyone but just some do it more than others. Novak does it and it does him no harm.

Looking hang dog? Not sure I understand that one.

Stop holding his back. Why not if it hurts - it is a natural thing to do and you cannot tell me this prevents him winning slams.

If you believe he has the mental fragility of a child all of the time then it kind of doesn't add up as we all know the great things he has acheived in the sport.

Yes that one I would agree with you on. That is easier said than done though if you haven't been born and brought up with a strong self-belief. Now if he ever does win a slam that will be that problem solved I would think.

Murray to me has always exuded negativity on court. He just doesnt look or act like a "winner" IMO (not a top winner). It may sound glib but even the way he dresses reinforces this. The top 3 have a certain set of traits that completely separate them from him - they have an aura about them that Murray lacks.

I completely agree BB and my reason for raising it. I was flabbergasted to read it...he's as fit as a flea...he's been working on nothing but fitness for years now. Seems to me he should have devoted more of that time on simple serving technique drills, as well as working out ways to use the obvious talents he has.

Its my opinion he made a grievous error in trying to become another Nadal. Someone he openly awes. Firstly, he cant be Nadal. Secondly, he didnt need to be. He should have been a more powerful Santoro/Mecir...he could have been a completely different sort of player that the top guys would have hated playing...he could have pointed to way to a different way of playing the game with the touch talent he has/had. All those early wins over Federer and Nadal showed this was possible. But he went the muscle route and trampled all over the finesse he had inside him. It was like a ballerina taking up bodybuilding...it just wasnt right. And now I fear he's paying the price for nailing his colours to the wrong mast. My oft stated opinion of Lendl being the wrong guy for him is that Lendl will probably just keeping knocking that nail deeper...when what he really needed was someone to spot the other mast and move Murray to it.

Hawkeye, you are obsessed. How about this:

Maximum 1 article on Murray per month.
At least 2 out of every 3 of your articles not about Murray.

Could you manage it?

Henman Bill wrote:Hawkeye, you are obsessed. How about this:

Maximum 1 article on Murray per month.
At least 2 out of every 3 of your articles not about Murray.

Could you manage it?

Not a chance in hell.

Well they aren't bad articles by itself as they are from news sources...
But you can see my comment in the top of the page (3 comments down) and you can see my concern.

It Must Be Love wrote:Well they aren't bad articles by itself as they are from news sources...
But you can see my comment in the top of the page (3 comments down) and you can see my concern.

Your earlier comment will cut no ice with this poster. They have been this way inclined for around seven or eight years now and so won't change. Posting links is okay but when it begins to twist the words he says and takes them out of context to fit their own agenda is when it crosses the line of right and wrong in my opinion. Inconsistency as well - she held a lot of stock in Miss Wade's opinion when it suited her but chose not to quote Miss Wade who was very complimentary of Murray's play V Gasquet choosing instead to go for another report which she hoped would bring more criticism on Murray. A dangerous obsession.

By the way Hawkeye if the media coverage Murray gets irks you. Tough.He gets the lions share of the British media interest as he has carried the British flag in men's tennis on his own for almost the whole of his career. British men's tennis is NOTHING without him. Trot along to Espana and you'll find their media is obsessed with Nadal, Swiss media obsessed with Federer and the French media obsessed with their players and so on and so on. I suggest you emigrate if you cannot stand the media attention Murray gets.

The elephant in the room of course is not "why is Murray not quite good enough to win a slam at the moment", but "why are the rest of the British male tennis players so cr&p" [pardon the french].

Im not a Murray fan but neither have I ever been Ante Murray. I try to keep out of such discussions. But I like most of you watched a good part of that match yesterday and pleeeeeeeeze dont try to convince me there is anything wrong with his back. When he was serving at 200+ kms there wasn´t a sign of back problem no rubbing clutching or even touching. As was the case when he made a superb return whacking it down the line for all he was worth. The back problem came when Daveeed made a winning shot or Murray made an UE-
Sadly I will say to all Murray fans that it is this sort of thing that does not win the support that I think Murray needs. I would like to get behind him but I thought his display of childish sulking behaviour for a grown man who is No.4. in the world is really quite deplorable. Certainly Lendl the great self-disciplined professional that he was does not seem to be assisting Murray in this regard. Or is it "why should I worry Im being paid for letting him do what he wants anyway"
Ive said it before but for someone who has the talent that Andy has to be literally throwing away his chances with every match he plays he needs a kick up the arris.. My apologies to you Craig I know you are his biggest fan

Haddie-nuff. Have to agree with you. Andy M's body language is awful. He's not a petulant teenager. He's 25. Doubt it very much that things will change, though.

To be fair Djokovic's body language is pretty bad too at times... but you have an inside feeling that Djokovic is just bluffing and is about to raise his game. With Murray you don't think that way.

Yes I think he isn´t the greatest either.. and some of his celebratory body language is even worse.. however the difference is he is making the most of the talent he has and its reaping its rewards. Andy on the other hand has all the tools in the locker.. and cant find them when he needs them . Daveeed himself said that Andy has everything to be a future No.1. that is what is so frustrating. His body language when he is being interviewed is bad... he cannot look at the interviewer or the camera and is constantly rubbing his face.. is it a lack of self-confidence ??? because his brother is entirely different. I do so wish if not for HIS OWN SAKE but for his band of followers that he would get himself sorted

Haddie-nuff wrote:... Certainly Lendl the great self-disciplined professional that he was does not seem to be assisting Murray in this regard. ...

You can lead a horse to water ... it is something ultimately Murray has to find for himself, he has previously made it known that if he (Murray) is not convinced then he will do it as how he sees fit.

Anyway others observing the match saw a change in Murray - being more aggressive - which is what many have said he needs to do. His unforced error count suggests that he is in transition with regard to changing up the style.

Murray working on his fitness doesn't preclude working on his technical problems. People talk like he just pumps iron and does cardio all year round. They are professionals who train year round and work on percieved flaws in their game. An amateur observer would notice the weak 2nd serve - how much more Murray himself. That he exhibits the same flaws doesn't mean he's not worked on it. Some reap results from the extra work and improve, other don't. Nadal still hits short when feeling the strain. Fed's BH still breaks down like in his last match with Nole.

People are over-analyzing things a little with Murray. He gave it his all but wasn't good enough on the day on his least favoured surface. There's lots more tennis in more favoured conditions to come. He's played some brilliant aggressive tennis this tournament and deserves more credit.

Fair enough Haddie-nuff - that is your opinion and you are intitled to it. What irks me more than anything is that I see many things in many players that bug or irritate me but don't go on an all out offensive attack on them (not saying you are Hn). It is always Murray that is slated with so much negative nonsense with no let up. Sorry guys but step back and look at his tennis CV and you'll find it mightily impressive and even more impressive when you take into account he is British (a country incapable of producing slam winning tennis players, no strike that, incapable of producing players capable of winning a match at slam events). We hear people on here worrying about the state of men's tennis if/when Roger Federer retires well I shudder to think when Britain will have a player as consistently excellent as Andy Murray again considering his slam records (barring wins) is now close to what Sir Fred Perry achieved seventy five years ago.

Nore Stat ... his mental attitude is everything imo no matter how talented he is he will never be a complete player and be as competitive as the top 3 (who are all so mentally strong). That is the one thing he surely must concentrate on. To build up his self-belief confidence and focus .. his talent will surely automatically take over from there. His tennis talent will take care of itself if he gets his head right.

Nore Staat. The difficulty with Andy is that, often, he NEEDS to be more aggressive, but it's just NOT his natural game. He is basically a defensive player who has an amazing reach, gets a lot of balls back, can play very long matches and can, at times, counter punch.
Anyone who saw him take Rafa apart in the USO 08 semi knows that he can play an attacking game. He did it successfully for a time against Rafa at Wimbledon last year, missed one easy shot and was never in the match again.
But he just makes too many errors when he goes on the attack. Yet there are times when if he gets too defensive he's gonna lose as well. Bit of a dilemma, eh?

Haddie & SFP: I think it has been self-evident to most what Murray needs to do ... and even if he does it it might not work due to things we don't know about the Murray psyche and physiology. No-one can lead anyone elses life and ultimately it is in Murrays hands how he is to lead the life of "Andy Murray". We can criticise and complain but ultimately what is the point considering most would be satisfied living the life of Murray. My point is there is no point us getting worked up over it, my major complaint is not why Murray is so bad, but why is he so good - so good in fact he is being contemplated as a potential slam champion.

ps I admit to giving Murray fair criticism in the past

I'd agree very much with that sirfredperry. He played aggressively against Gasquet and with great accuracy and blew him off the court hitting 59 winners. He played aggressively (by all accounts) against Ferrer but the accuracy this time was missing and hit 59 unforced errors and lost. He just needs to keep plugging away at improving consistencies in his aggressive game and I think the rest will come together as that is what happened against Gasquet.

Point of fact:- On clay Murray had not won a set off Ferrer playing his 'too passive-style' but yesterday he won a set and created chances playing a more aggressive game. Surely, a further sign that the aggressive route is the one he has to take.

I agree with CC there is much scope for optimism that Murray might win a slam "for Britain".

Exactly Nore Stat--

Little Daveed did not beat Andy yesterday because he was the better tennis player (even Daveed said that he has great admiration for Andy)
Daveed used tactics and kept his head and remained mentally strong.
He watched his talented oponent beat himself up and used it to his advantage.
Yes of course we dont know what makes Andy who he is and how he reacts but Im sure there is some help out there somewhere because as sure as God made little apples you dont have to teach him how to play tennis or how to move he does all that admirably .. just how to keep his head at the times he is in danger of losing it.

Nore Staat wrote:I agree with CC there is much scope for optimism that Murray might win a slam "for Britain".

If he does it will be for himself but there will be a proportion of the British public that will be delighted.

Haddie-nuff wrote:... just how to keep his head at the times he is in danger of losing it.

By the time Murray develops a wise head, it might be perched on old shoulders ... but isn't that always the way?

sirfredperry wrote:Well if Lendl was brought in to toughen Murray's mental approach, he aint doing much of a job. Andy needs to:
:: Stop berating himself on court
:: Stop looking so hang dog
:: Stop holding his back
:: Stop having the mental fragility of a child
:: Believe in himself.

Maybe Murray is trying to get a bit of the Sampras hang dog expressions into his matches.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Andy Murray again considering his slam records (barring wins) is now close to what Sir Fred Perry achieved seventy five years ago.

Brilliant! Unfortunately not written in jest though, that's the worrying thing.