How many Grand Slams will Andy Murray win in his career?

First topic message reminder :

This Monday Andy Murray sealed history and became the first British male Grand Slam winner of this millenium! He ended Britain's 76 year wait, in a pulsating and dramatic 5 setter against his good friend Novak Djokovic.

But how many more Grand Slams will he go onto win?

His Rivals:
Rafael Nadal:
In my eyes Rafael Nadal is the player Murray will want to avoid at Slams. The good news for Murray is that Nadak is injured, and will need time to get back to full fitness. Andy has shown he can beat Djokovic in slams, with two 5 setters this year (one going each way) and he has shown he can beat Federer at this age in BO5 with his fantastic display in the Olympics. Now I think any tennis fan can tell you that Murray's results in 2012, well the latter half anyway, is far superior to his results in 2011. In 2011 he lost convincingly in the final to Novak Djokovic at the AO, and then lost to Rafael Nadal 3 times in a row in the remaining Grand Slams. But this year he has not lost to Nadal in a Grand Slam. Incredible!
He hasn't played him.
2011 Wimbledon + USO he loses in the semi of both. Has he improved now? Yes, his forehand and 2nd serve and steadily got better, while mentally Lendl I believe has made a difference to Murray's approach. In 2012 he reached the final of Wimbledon + wins USO. Nevertheless I believe Nadal's absence has been critical for Murray. Murray, by reaching the Wimbledon final and winning the Gold medal, accumulated enough self belief to win the major in the USA. But he can thank his lucky stars Nadal lost early in Wimbledon, and then dropped out due to injury for the rest of the year. Nadal had won the last 4 Slam meetings with Murray, and in tennis terms had Murray in his 'back pocket.'
But now things might change. Murray has more self belief, he has less doubts, mentally and physically he will be better prepared to deal with Nadal.
There is also no doubt that Murray can beat Nadal on hard courts, beating him in USO 2008, and also leading by 2 sets in the Australian Open 2010.
If Nadal regains his full fitness then I believe Nadal and Murray can set up an engrossing rivalry. In my eyes a fully fit Nadal holds the edge, but Murray has to play with more aggression, certainly with more aggression than he played with in this recent US Open final.

Roger Federer:
Murray leads the overall head to head with Roger Federer 9-8. But in Slams Roger leads 3-0, though the recent BO5 match they have played Murray was stunning, winning in straight sets. Federer has had an incredible summer for him, and at this age, is playing great tennis. Nonetheless, I feel Roger is vulnerable. He is not as consistent as he was in his prime, and I think he only has a maximum of 3 years left at the very top of the game. Murray knows he can beat Roger, and I feel after this USO and Olympics win, will feel he has the edge against Roger on any surface apart from clay, or an indoor court. If Murray and Federer were to face in the next AO final, with both fully fit, I would say Murray is 52% favourite. In Wimbledon, before the roof came on, Murray was a set up and had two break points at 4-4. He didn't take those, and it came back to haunt him. Now mentally I feel in these moments he will believe in himself more.

Novak Djokovic:
Well, these two just played the USO Open final, and Murray won in 5 sets! Murray also beat Djokovic in the Olympics, and Dubai, while Djokovic beat Murray in Miami and AO earlier this year. This rivalry promises to be very close for the next few years, and with them both 25 years old, barring injury they should have a lot of success in the future. There is something different about Djokovic now though. In 2011 he had a great year no doubt, but this year mentally in the big moments he has been much worse. Now I am not predicting doomsday, but the only tournaments he has won since the AO are Miami and Toronto. In Miami he faced Isner in the final, in Toronto he had to beat Gasquet. I think going forward from here on, Murray has the edge. (By this I mean I think Murray will add more to his 1 Grand Slam than Djokovic will to his 5, I expect Djokovic to eventually end up with more Grand Slams but the gap will be less than the 4 it is currently).
Djokovic, like true champions do, has to bounce back mentally. This year I feel the pressure has got to him, the huge pressure and expectation of 2011. In the bigger moments he has been poor, double-faulting in key moments and missing shots he would expect to finsh easily. He will be back, but I don't think he will reach the 2011 levels.
So, all in all, I believe we have a fantastic rivalry to come between these two, but I feel Murray at the moment holds the edge.

How Many Slams will Andy Murray win in his career?
My verdict is: 6 slams.

What do you think?
IMBL

Here is somone with a very, shall we say, confident prediction about the 2013 slams..........................

Not saying it definitely won't happen but I think there are three other players who may have something to say about it.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12870/

slashermcguirk wrote:dont understand how you can say murray has edge over novak ! absolutely not true. The only time he has beaten novak in a slam was a few days ago in 5 sets in unusually windy conditions. Murray coming from Scotland will have a lot more experience of playing in wind than most other players. Even despite this, Djokovic nearly beat him. Also bear in mind the 1st set tie break could have gone either way.

Yes, the wind never blows anywhere else does it, hence why Scotland is the only country in the world to have wind turbines, hang their washing on the line, have wind vanes, fluttering flags, hats blowing off, trees blowing down etc etc etc.

Nadal comes from a windy Mallorca while Serbia is known to be pretty windy. The town Veternik actually means Windy in Serbian.

I think Murray might sneak another one in the next four years or so, but this is not to be taken for granted. After all, everybody has already forgotten how accidental has been the way he won in the USO: he could have lost to Cilic, had the Croat not choked in such a spectacular fashion, or to Berdych, had not the winds made the match nearly unplayable.....or to Djokovic. It's been a circumstantial win, not surely a dominant display. It may happen again, as well as it may not.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think Murray might sneak another one in the next four years or so, but this is not to be taken for granted. After all, everybody has already forgotten how accidental has been the way he won in the USO: he could have lost to Cilic, had the Croat not choked in such a spectacular fashion, or to Berdych, had not the winds made the match nearly unplayable.....or to Djokovic. It's been a circumstantial win, not surely a dominant display. It may happen again, as well as it may not.

Isn't winning matches that could have been lost all part of winning slams? Hardly unique to this USO.

Coping well with prevailing conditions also part of winning.

Not giving in and making your opponent earn the win, also part of winning.

All skills that winners need.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think Murray might sneak another one in the next four years or so, but this is not to be taken for granted. After all, everybody has already forgotten how accidental has been the way he won in the USO: he could have lost to Cilic, had the Croat not choked in such a spectacular fashion, or to Berdych, had not the winds made the match nearly unplayable.....or to Djokovic. It's been a circumstantial win, not surely a dominant display. It may happen again, as well as it may not.

It was basically a repeat of the AO2012 Semi-final but this time Andy Murray was prepared to drag himself through and beyond the pain barrier to win it.

He is also a little better, and certainly mentally tougher. So this was not a fluke - as testament to him regularly appearing in semi-finals and now finals. It has always been the last hurdle that he hasn't quite been able to handle - playing finals , semi-finals against the top three.

However he has broken through this hurdle with his best of five set match win over Federer at the Olympics and with his US Open final display.

The issue is more going to be whether he can keep doing this to his body to win ... and whether Djokovic and perhaps Nadal can up the ante.

Murray might expect to win more easily (in terms of physical demand) against players like Federer and others. But Djokovic and Nadal generally require their opponent to go through the physical pain barrier to win - although Nadal is not such a good opposition on the hard courts as he is on the clay (unbeatable) or grass (but still beatable).

ps Murray had a slow start against Cilic, but once he found his strategy and his stride he went on to crush him. Murray also crushed Berdych when Berdych went a little wayward (second and third set), but then mentally toughed it out in the fourth set and still won on the tie-breaker.

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think Murray might sneak another one in the next four years or so, but this is not to be taken for granted. After all, everybody has already forgotten how accidental has been the way he won in the USO: he could have lost to Cilic, had the Croat not choked in such a spectacular fashion, or to Berdych, had not the winds made the match nearly unplayable.....or to Djokovic. It's been a circumstantial win, not surely a dominant display. It may happen again, as well as it may not.

Isn't winning matches that could have been lost all part of winning slams? Hardly unique to this USO.

Coping well with prevailing conditions also part of winning.

Not giving in and making your opponent earn the win, also part of winning.

All skills that winners need.

That's exactly what I am saying. If you are no Sampras, Federer or Borg, winning slams is inevitably circumstantial. It's needed great ability coupled with a good share of luck. Murray could have won one before, as well has lost this one, easily. Nothing is for granted at this level.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think Murray might sneak another one in the next four years or so, but this is not to be taken for granted. After all, everybody has already forgotten how accidental has been the way he won in the USO: he could have lost to Cilic, had the Croat not choked in such a spectacular fashion, or to Berdych, had not the winds made the match nearly unplayable.....or to Djokovic. It's been a circumstantial win, not surely a dominant display. It may happen again, as well as it may not.

Isn't winning matches that could have been lost all part of winning slams? Hardly unique to this USO.

Coping well with prevailing conditions also part of winning.

Not giving in and making your opponent earn the win, also part of winning.

All skills that winners need.

That's exactly what I am saying. If you are no Sampras, Federer or Borg, winning slams is inevitably circumstantial. It's needed great ability coupled with a good share of luck. Murray could have won one before, as well has lost this one, easily. Nothing is for granted at this level.

True

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think Murray might sneak another one in the next four years or so, but this is not to be taken for granted. After all, everybody has already forgotten how accidental has been the way he won in the USO: he could have lost to Cilic, had the Croat not choked in such a spectacular fashion, or to Berdych, had not the winds made the match nearly unplayable.....or to Djokovic. It's been a circumstantial win, not surely a dominant display. It may happen again, as well as it may not.

Isn't winning matches that could have been lost all part of winning slams? Hardly unique to this USO.

Coping well with prevailing conditions also part of winning.

Not giving in and making your opponent earn the win, also part of winning.

All skills that winners need.

That's exactly what I am saying. If you are no Sampras, Federer or Borg, winning slams is inevitably circumstantial. It's needed great ability coupled with a good share of luck. Murray could have won one before, as well has lost this one, easily. Nothing is for granted at this level.

So just to be clear do you put all Djokovic's and Nadal's slam wins into the circumstantial category.

3 or 2 maybe, even then the best players can't be around.

drsambo1928 wrote:3 or 2 maybe, even then the best players can't be around.

?

Calder106 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think Murray might sneak another one in the next four years or so, but this is not to be taken for granted. After all, everybody has already forgotten how accidental has been the way he won in the USO: he could have lost to Cilic, had the Croat not choked in such a spectacular fashion, or to Berdych, had not the winds made the match nearly unplayable.....or to Djokovic. It's been a circumstantial win, not surely a dominant display. It may happen again, as well as it may not.

Isn't winning matches that could have been lost all part of winning slams? Hardly unique to this USO.

Coping well with prevailing conditions also part of winning.

Not giving in and making your opponent earn the win, also part of winning.

All skills that winners need.

That's exactly what I am saying. If you are no Sampras, Federer or Borg, winning slams is inevitably circumstantial. It's needed great ability coupled with a good share of luck. Murray could have won one before, as well has lost this one, easily. Nothing is for granted at this level.

So just to be clear do you put all Djokovic's and Nadal's slam wins into the circumstantial category.

Nadal is obviously in the same group as above, concerning his edge on the clay courts. Djokovic has had an impressive year that I think should be considered a one off event. Now on, yes, I think it's got to be a circumstantial for him as well.....

Calder106 wrote:

drsambo1928 wrote:3 or 2 maybe, even then the best players can't be around.

?

?

Are you saying he can't win a slam if the best players are there ?

Calder106 wrote:Are you saying he can't win a slam if the best players are there ?

Well, some of them can be there like Novak was this time.

Roger was there as well. Just didn't get to the semis.

Calder106 wrote:Roger was there as well. Just didn't get to the semis.

The 'one who cant be named' is who i was talking about.

Well given the rankings and draw he would have had to beat Djokovic on a hard court to get to play Murray in the final.

Djokovic has a dip in form at the moment, if he beat Rafa or Roger he could win any final

Yeh he was suffering a huge dip in form at the USO. He lost one set before the final. Pretty poor.

Calder106 wrote:Yeh he was suffering a huge dip in form at the USO. He lost one set before the final. Pretty poor.

It is pretty poor isnt it. He is losing his grip

Sorry drsambo, but are you still questioning if Murray can beat the best when it really matters over best of five?

You are aware that he has just beaten Novak (unbeaten in 2 years on HC in slams) in New York and Federer (maybe greatest ever on grass) at SW19 in his last two Bo5 finals?

The Tennis Space are very positive about his future chances

http://www.thetennisspace.com/opinion/murray-can-play-freely-at-wimbledon-next-summer/

I think he will alwayas be a mainly counter puncher carrie, even with the slam in his bag. The way in which he played in the final suggests he's still a sit back player and likes to lengthen the rallies.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I think he will alwayas be a mainly counter puncher carrie, even with the slam in his bag. The way in which he played in the final suggests he's still a sit back player and likes to lengthen the rallies.

I think his natural instinct is to defend (obviously he is one of the best defenders in the game) but he is becoming more aggressive all the time. Clearly it is something he is still working on hence his comments about needing to work on stopping players getting back into the match more when he is ahead. He will never be an all out attack player but that's fine by me and he should still bag a few more major titles.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I think he will alwayas be a mainly counter puncher carrie, even with the slam in his bag. The way in which he played in the final suggests he's still a sit back player and likes to lengthen the rallies.

Depends who he's playing. Against Novak it will always be a war of attrition, but we saw against Federer in the Olympics the aggressor Murray is capable of being. And he always tries to play aggressive against Rafa, which wasn't that successful in the big games in 2011. But I think will be more successful in future with the belief he'll now have.

The way he can hit the forehand now, and the way he has always been able to lean into the backhand... I think we'll see a much more aggressive Murray from now on. He was a bit passive in the third and fourth sets on Monday, but vowed to himself that he would 'go for it' in the fifth, and look at the result.

2012 has already seen Murray ditch the 2 metres behind the baseline tactic. He'll be much more on the front foot from now on I think.

To me murray has always been hurt in his attack game by two factors that seem to have been solidified Danny. One is that he was on the back foot whenever he had to have a second serve and the second was that his forehand could go off the reservation in a bad way in big matches. To a certain extent both of these problems have been addressed to a certain extent.

Still when Andy plays Roger or Novak he typically counterpunches more than he does against most other players. In the USO final Novak had more Aces, errors, Doubles, winners, and twice as many net approaches. Yet murray's forehand and second serve despite the terrible conditions held up well against a lot of pressure from Novak.

I really do see the next 2-3 years on the tour as a period that will be a battle between Novak and Andy for supremacy with both getting their wins in, in what will be a very tough rivalry.

Murray will win about 5 or 6 and that's more than realistic. It's basically him and Djokovic sharing the next 8-12 slams. Nadal's knees are gone, Fed will retire and due to no serious contender coming through then Murray should flourish later in his career.

I think Fed and Nadal will be there and I think both could win more slams John. But the next three years I wouldn't be surprised if the #1 ranking shifted between Murray and Novak. If Nadal does manage a good run of health then it will be a 3 dog fight for the #1 over the next couple of years.

I agree socal about Andy improving his relative weaknesses. There were 3 for me. The forehand and second serve as you've mentioned, but also his default position of way behind the baseline. Even in some of the safer rallies on monday he was hitting the ball on the rise. We never used to see that.

That was one of the big steps forward Novak made last year, and Murray has done it this year. I read earlier this year it was one of the first things Lendl tried to change. He convinced him that even when his opponents hit with great depth, that he was skilled enough to take balls almost on the half volley.

He convinced him that 1 metre further up the court meant less time for his opponent to react. It's reaped huge benefits. Of course, Murray is still more that capable of winning matches from back there. But not for a whole match against any of his 3 main rivals.

The formula to improve his serve is amusingly simple.... Lendl told him to stop practicing it! He thought Murrays poor percentages and weak 2nd serve we're because his shoulder was too tight from too much serving practice. The improvement has been amazing considering it was such an unusual approach. I guess practice doesn't make perfect!

As for the forehand, I read that Lendl spent hours just playing to the Murray forehand, telling him to drive through it. We now rarely see the tentative Murray forehand, leaning back like he's afraid of it.

Yes Danny very astute assessment. But he did play the final pretty defensively, watching that match I wouldn't say that based on the flow of play or the match stats that he played it that aggressively. I actually think however that in these particular conditions his lobs and forehand slices actually helped him win the match. However in general the points you make are correct. I was particularly impressed with his second serve. Yes Novak did break him many, many times but in the wind and against the best returner in the world it held up pretty good. At the AO semi I think he won less than 30 percent of his second serve points against Novak, we saw an improvement here considering the wind.


I think there is more that can be done on the court positioning frankly. He still plays way too many points from way deep in the court. But of course it is always a work in progress. PS how brilliant by lendl the player to realize that murray had a bit of dead shoulder and just needed to serve less. It takes a lot of experience and first hand knowledge to come up with that.

His court position wasn't as agressive on Monday as it has been the rest of the year, that is true. But the conditions dictated that. He was far more aggressive in Melbourne and at the Olympics against Novak. I think if either player had gone all out aggressive on Monday in that wind, they'd have lost in straight sets.

As for both their serving stats, these are the 2 best returners around. They break down anyone's serve. You almost have to disregard serving stats when these two meet. Did you see what Murray did to Raonic's monster of a serve? He made it look like a park players serve!

Murray has the ability to attack, defend, come forward, stay back... His mind has always told him to take the safe option though. Lendl has changed that, he's convinced him he can win as the attacker. We don't see it all the time, but we see it a hell of a lot more.

That is what has hopefully been let loose by beating Federer and Novak in 2 big finals... The belief to go for shots. We'll see in Melbourne whether that's the case.

I think it is the case Danny as you say and I think we will see Andy rejuvenated by this summer of success. I do agree about the conditions and the returning of his opponent impacting him but I bet if you look at second serve points won at the AO semi and compare it to this final you will see that Murray did materially better.


Murray is an exceptionally varied player however in general I think he plays a bit more passively than Novak. Djoko is a bit quicker on the trigger of the forehand and more aggressive in court positioning on the whole. But Murray's recent successes should provide him with a platform to build on from here.

I hope he dosn't suffer from "1st major syndrome" and be anonymous for the next year. With Lendl, hopefully not.

Good point Juan it took djoko quite some time to win #2. Sometimes it is harder to deal with complacency and the one being the hunted as opposed to being the hunter.

It's strange how often it happens. Right off the top of my head, one that comes to mind is Stosur who did next to nothing after winning the USO last year. Del Potro too, although that was down to injury more than anything else.

I think winning the USO might be the best one to win for a first major. You have the rest of the season an then the off season to think sit back and think "What now?"

Well Juan the one thing here that murray has working for him is that he has so much experience at the highest levels of the game. Stosur while she has been a recent winner and having been a top ten gal for a long time hasn't had the lengthy track record of winning that murray has had. The reserved way he took the victory shows me that he is very mature and has an expectation of even more success which bodes well for him. To me I think since he is still very much chasing the three guys in front of him that maybe it will be easier psychologically for him to adjust. I wouldn't be surprised though if he had sort of a indifferent indoor season, but it is also possible that he has a great indoor season with added confidence. We will have to see there really is no telling how he will react.