Andy Murray - Charlie Rose

Interesting interview with Andy Murray, he talks about his fellow professionals in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and what makes them so good. The thing that struck me most was his reasoning to what made them so good.

Djokovic is a superior athlete, hes quicker and more flexible than himself and is so consistent he is like 'a wall'

Federer, plays a classical style that looks nice and seems to look like he's working a lot less hard than everyone else. He uses a looser racket so he does not have to hit the ball as hard as others.

Rafa, mentally is a rock and intensity in each point is what makes him so difficult to play.

Murray regards himself as someone who plays with a lot of feel and a player very different to Djokovic (which i found interesting as many people say they are very similar)

Not a fan of Charlie Rose interviews with tennis players as he doesn't have a great understanding of the game and it shows a lot in his questions but I do like the setting of the interviews.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Media/Videos/Uploaded/2012/9/13/Andy-Murray-Charlie-Rose-Show.aspx

Interesting interview, thanks CAS

Charlie Rose is a great interviewer but like CAS said he does not have the most knowledge in tennis like he does in politics. All of the top four guys do a real nice job with the press and their off court responsibilities. These guys are pretty amazing examples of what sporting champs should be. They all seem like generally good hearted, well adjusted, and bright.

CAS wrote:Murray regards himself as someone who plays with a lot of feel and a player very different to Djokovic (which i found interesting as many people say they are very similar)

Murray's description of himself is spot on. He's the "feel" player of this generation and he is different to Nole as he has more consistent variety plus more instinctive volleying skills (when he uses them). However, a bit like McEnroe and Agassi before him this "feel" can actually be a big weakness as little things can throw such a players game out of kilter. Hence out of the four Andy is the one most affected by changes of conditions and the one most likely to struggle if he's not "on it", i.e. he's the least robust of the four

I agree with much of what you said Banbrotam, however I think personally Novak suffers with changing conditions the most. Madrid clay, wind at the US Open etc unless you mean court speeds? Also, Federer is regarded to be the most gifted yet he is probably the best wind player out of the lot of them, yet timing is so key to his game

Murray says Djokovic is a wall, Federer looks pretty but that is deceptive and Nadal is mentally strong. The only player worthy of being described in terms of tennis skill in a way that hints at natural talent is himself. A set apart from Djokovic.

CAS wrote:I agree with much of what you said Banbrotam, however I think personally Novak suffers with changing conditions the most. Madrid clay, wind at the US Open etc unless you mean court speeds? Also, Federer is regarded to be the most gifted yet he is probably the best wind player out of the lot of them, yet timing is so key to his game

Andy's also very fickle when it comes to conditions and previously (pre Lendl) was rubbish in the wind. I would say that both he and Novak are the most likely to be affected by unexpected court conditions. However, where Andy flops is that he used to be (and still can be, see Lopez) terrible at beating opponents quickly - Novak is far more effective. For isntance the Serb spent around 6 hours less on court than Andy, yet his QF and SF was tougher than Andy's

Fed is actually affected by the wind as he's another who can get himself beaten up by the conditions. Remember, most correctly thought Murray would have won if Wimbledon stayed outdoors. And there was the notorious complaint about the sun (I think) when Novak beat him at Miami 2009. Because Fed's getting older, understandably he has less margin for error -so conditions affect him almost as much now.

hawkeye wrote: Murray says Djokovic is a wall, Federer looks pretty but that is deceptive and Nadal is mentally strong. The only player worthy of being described in terms of tennis skill in a way that hints at natural talent is himself. A set apart from Djokovic.

Murray's descriptions, I'd guarantee would be agreed with around 90% of the experts. Novak is a wall, i.e. when he gets on a roll he's almost impossible to stop as he does the same thing consistently well (like a wall). When Murray gets on a roll or is at his best, he uses his strength which is his variety - his uncanny ability to move players around the court to his agenda

Murray is highly skilled and a throwback to yesteryear (even wiki say he's similar to Mecir - must loved at the time)

He will never have the sustained strength to compete with Novak or Rafa so in that case he has to do something different and it's his variety that is the key

I think Federer is more of a throw back than Murray, do you think he's more talented than Roger? Federers matches against Agassi at the 2004 US Open and more recently against Soderling in 2010 or Nadal in Indian Wells he proved he is the best wind player to me personally.

Murray is the more skilful than Novak or Rafa but not as physical as them, but more physical than Federer. In my mind, he's a bit of a hybrid. A supreme athlete with touch and feel, however not quite as skilful as Federer but not quite as athletic as Novak or Rafa. You could argue he is then the more complete player in todays game, but maybe what has slightly held him back over the years is getting the balance right. (i.e, not sure whether to fight fire with fire with Roger or wear him down, or go to war with Rafa or use variety)

CAS wrote:I think Federer is more of a throw back than Murray, do you think he's more talented than Roger? Federers matches against Agassi at the 2004 US Open and more recently against Soderling in 2010 or Nadal in Indian Wells he proved he is the best wind player to me personally.

Murray is the more skilful than Novak or Rafa but not as physical as them, but more physical than Federer. In my mind, he's a bit of a hybrid. A supreme athlete with touch and feel, however not quite as skilful as Federer but not quite as athletic as Novak or Rafa. You could argue he is then the more complete player in todays game, but maybe what has slightly held him back over the years is getting the balance right. (i.e, not sure whether to fight fire with fire with Roger or wear him down, or go to war with Rafa or use variety)

Agreed. And no Fed is the most talented we've ever seen -we rarely see it now (4th set at Wimbledon) but we must never forget just how great his play was in 2004-6

Before the Noval and Rafa defenders start, talent means nowt, just ask Richard Gasquet!!

I agree with Ljubicic that the next generation are going to be huge ultra attacking players who can hit through the court to deal with the defenders, Murray at 6'3 still amazes me how well he gets around

banbrotam wrote:

CAS wrote:Murray regards himself as someone who plays with a lot of feel and a player very different to Djokovic (which i found interesting as many people say they are very similar)

Murray's description of himself is spot on. He's the "feel" player of this generation and he is different to Nole as he has more consistent variety plus more instinctive volleying skills (when he uses them). However, a bit like McEnroe and Agassi before him this "feel" can actually be a big weakness as little things can throw such a players game out of kilter. Hence out of the four Andy is the one most affected by changes of conditions and the one most likely to struggle if he's not "on it", i.e. he's the least robust of the four

Funny, I see Murray as second only to Nadal at playing in the wind, far better than Djokovic.

In fact I thought Djokovic's robotic game was a bit exposed by Murrays superior adaptability on Monday.

bogbrush wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

CAS wrote:Murray regards himself as someone who plays with a lot of feel and a player very different to Djokovic (which i found interesting as many people say they are very similar)

Murray's description of himself is spot on. He's the "feel" player of this generation and he is different to Nole as he has more consistent variety plus more instinctive volleying skills (when he uses them). However, a bit like McEnroe and Agassi before him this "feel" can actually be a big weakness as little things can throw such a players game out of kilter. Hence out of the four Andy is the one most affected by changes of conditions and the one most likely to struggle if he's not "on it", i.e. he's the least robust of the four

Funny, I see Murray as second only to Nadal at playing in the wind, far better than Djokovic.

In fact I thought Djokovic's robotic game was a bit exposed by Murrays superior adaptability on Monday.

I think it's true the opposite.Windy conditions affect mostly offensive players that either play S&V (few remaining now) or attacking from the baseline (like Federer and Berdych) who obviously need to find the lines and are unable to do so with strong wind. Between Djokovic and Murray certainly the first is the more affected as he plays flatter shots and attacks more i generally. Murray, similarly to Nadal, plays his FH nearly exlusively in top spin, a shot with a big margin of safety and that because of high ball rotation is less affected by the win.

I think Djokovic in perfect conditions beats Murray personally, but you can argue it makes Murray better all round that he can adjust

CAS I hope Murray fans don't take this the wrong way but I think both Berdy and Djoko beat him in less windy conditions. Generally, windy conditions throws off the aggressor in a match more than the counterpuncher. And I think in both the Berdy match and the Djoko match that Andy was the retriever and not the aggressor. But that is the sport of tennis the slams have been played outdoors and you got to battle all kinds of things conditions and scheduling included, so credit to murray for utilizing whatever he had to, to win those two matches.

I want to disagree with you about Berdych but with their record against each there its hardly a crazy opinion. I guess we will never know and future match ups will determine the answer, but to be fair Murray beat Berdych in Dubai on very quick courts and Berdych beat Murray on clay in straight sets. So may still just come down to day form with those two.

I think the results against Berdych are slightly anomalous. Murray generally has an excellent record against power hitters such as Del Potro etc. but not against Berdych. Not sure what it is about Berdych' game that gets him but I have the feeling he will prevail in the future.

CArrie and CAS I am going less off of Berdy's h2h with murray and more off of how the two players' form looked at this tournament. Berdy for a set and half had Andy on the ropes. But he seemed to get more and more frustrated with catching tosses and he was laughing at the bounces and the ball shifts, it seemed to get to him more and more as the match went on. While this slam oddly enough murray looked in poor form for the whole thing till he won it. That is a testament to his ability by the way. But if not for a complete mental collapse by Cilic who was up double break in the second set after winning the first set it could have been a very bad early exit. Against Lopez, Cilic, and Berdy Andy looked vulnerable and against Novak as well. A combination of his experience, maturity, fitness, and some good breaks saw him through the trophy. This was a gutty win as opposed to a dominant win by murray.

Maybe it wasn't that great......Anyway check on the vivid imagination of LF for an answer. OUCH! Wrong thread.....

I dont think people are quite appreciating how good Murray was in sets 2 and 3 of the semi-final against Berdych. He didn't handle the wind at all well in set 1. He then made it look like it wasn't even windy in sets 2 and 3. He was hitting winners for fun and barely missing. Sure, Berdy got frustrated. It's hard work playing when it only seems to be windy on your end of the court! Murray's level dropped again in the final set but by then the real damage had been done. Similarly, for all the talk of cilic's collapse, Murray turned that match around in supreme style.

I think Cilic bottled it when he served for the set the first time. Murray smelled blood after that and Cilic never had a hope after that.

The Special Juan wrote:I think Cilic bottled it when he served for the set the first time. Murray smelled blood after that and Cilic never had a hope after that.

Well, let's look at that game:

- Murray hits deep backhand return, Cilic makes forced error 0-15
- Cilic wins point with big first serve 15-15
- Murray wins 19 stroke rally with deep slice approach 15-30
- Cilic hits clutch second serve to Murray's backhand 30-30
- Cilic wins point with body serve 40-30
- Murray saves set point with two big forehands and a knifed volley followed by a stop volley 40-40
- Murray hits deep approach and Cilic nets on backhand with Murray at net Ad Murray
- Murray hits forehand winner

So Cilic won 3 points with good serves and Murray won all the other points with aggressive play, three of which ended with him at the net. Cilic made no unforced errors in that game. The actual turning point in Murray was two games before when he forced a break point with similar play only for Cilic to snatch it away with three great serves. From 1-5 to 4-5 neither player made an unforced error. Cilic played three quality games but lost all of them.

The choke game was the one at 5-4. However, given the pressure Murray had applied in his previous two service games, it wasn't surprising Cilic cracked. Even in that game he erased 0-40 with two big first serves and a clutch volley/smash combo. Murray then grabbed another BP with a huge off forehand followed by a stop volley. Cilic then went for a big second serve, which just missed, giving Murray the break. Worth noting that the only points Cilic won on his second serve from 4-1 were when he won the point with huge serves. He lost every point where a rally developed. Arguably it was the right play, he was just unlucky he missed.

Worth noting in set 3 Cilic still had a positive winner-error ratio but by that stage Murray had moved to a level he couldn't live with. This match should really be viewed as the eventual champ turning the match around rather than a hideous choke by Cilic. Had Murray not started to really turn it on at 1-4 then Cilic would have rolled straight over him as he did in 2009.

I said on the matchday thread, during the mid 2nd set, that I thought Cilic looked weary. I think that turned out correct.

Cilic is one of the fittest guys on tour. His 5 set record is immense and he had an easy match in the previous round. No way was he tired after 1 hour of tennis. He was still moving great at the end of the match.

Born Slippy wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:I think Cilic bottled it when he served for the set the first time. Murray smelled blood after that and Cilic never had a hope after that.

Well, let's look at that game:

- Murray hits deep backhand return, Cilic makes forced error 0-15
- Cilic wins point with big first serve 15-15
- Murray wins 19 stroke rally with deep slice approach 15-30
- Cilic hits clutch second serve to Murray's backhand 30-30
- Cilic wins point with body serve 40-30
- Murray saves set point with two big forehands and a knifed volley followed by a stop volley 40-40
- Murray hits deep approach and Cilic nets on backhand with Murray at net Ad Murray
- Murray hits forehand winner

So Cilic won 3 points with good serves and Murray won all the other points with aggressive play, three of which ended with him at the net. Cilic made no unforced errors in that game. The actual turning point in Murray was two games before when he forced a break point with similar play only for Cilic to snatch it away with three great serves. From 1-5 to 4-5 neither player made an unforced error. Cilic played three quality games but lost all of them.

The choke game was the one at 5-4. However, given the pressure Murray had applied in his previous two service games, it wasn't surprising Cilic cracked. Even in that game he erased 0-40 with two big first serves and a clutch volley/smash combo. Murray then grabbed another BP with a huge off forehand followed by a stop volley. Cilic then went for a big second serve, which just missed, giving Murray the break. Worth noting that the only points Cilic won on his second serve from 4-1 were when he won the point with huge serves. He lost every point where a rally developed. Arguably it was the right play, he was just unlucky he missed.

Worth noting in set 3 Cilic still had a positive winner-error ratio but by that stage Murray had moved to a level he couldn't live with. This match should really be viewed as the eventual champ turning the match around rather than a hideous choke by Cilic. Had Murray not started to really turn it on at 1-4 then Cilic would have rolled straight over him as he did in 2009.

For losing a set when you are two breaks up, especially when you are a big server like Cilic, you really have to bottle it, there's no other reasonable explanation. A player bottles when he gets tight and is no longer able to release his shots, it doesn't necessarily mean that he makes a number of UEs or sends the balls in the stands.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Maybe it wasn't that great......Anyway check on the vivid imagination of LF for an answer. OUCH! Wrong thread.....

May I ask what is this in reference to?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:[ player bottles when he gets tight and is no longer able to release his shots

Or his opponent stops moping about the conditions and starts to play like a future Grand Slam Champion

Are we going to discect all of Roger's wins, including that time at Wimbledon '05 (where he made Roddick look like a muppet) and realise he wasn't that good, but the opponent bottled it?

Being able to raise your game to a new level, during a match, is actually the most devastating weapon a player can have - simply because of the element of surprise. Even Novak had no answer after Andy made it 2-0 in the 5th

It's time we realised that players don't lose against Murray. He wins

To me Murray is the best tactician of the current Top 4. Fedalovic may have the titles, but Murray, if the current Top 4 were Chess players, rather than Tennis, would probably beat the others in Top 3 blinded. (Bit of an exaggeration, just to be illustrative ).

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think it's true the opposite.Windy conditions affect mostly offensive players that either play S&V (few remaining now) or attacking from the baseline (like Federer and Berdych) who obviously need to find the lines and are unable to do so with strong wind.

Please see Fedal @IW 2012.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Between Djokovic and Murray certainly the first is the more affected as he plays flatter shots and attacks more i generally. Murray, similarly to Nadal, plays his FH nearly exlusively in top spin, a shot with a big margin of safety and that because of high ball rotation is less affected by the win.

Djokovic was trying his utmost to slice the ball in the USO final, and just could not keep it in. Quite a few slices just drifted out, while the topspin FH kept Murray in the match.

Another 'crazy' FH topspin is Dolgopolov. I wonder if anyone has studied the rotation that he imparts to the ball.

carrieg4 wrote:I think the results against Berdych are slightly anomalous. Murray generally has an excellent record against power hitters such as Del Potro etc. but not against Berdych. Not sure what it is about Berdych' game that gets him but I have the feeling he will prevail in the future.

I think people do have to realise when the bird man's wins came.

One was around 2006, for instance, so I don't think that's relevant now!!

Then he beat him on the Clay of RG in 2010, no great shock. Berdy should be doing well at The French. Neither was this years Monte Carlo win - Murray was rubbish on the dirt this year, partially due to his back problems

So on Hard Courts, since Andy became better than Berdych, they've played three times and Andy's lost once, at Paris last year, where Murray ever does well as I suspect he tries to save himself for the O2, plus he might well have been injured (as he was at the O2). Let's say he was fully fit. It's no surprise that Berdych might beat Andy once every 3 times on hard courts

Berdych is a nightmare on an indoor HC (like O2 or Paris).

laverfan wrote:To me Murray is the best tactician of the current Top 4. Fedalovic may have the titles, but Murray, if the current Top 4 were Chess players, rather than Tennis, would probably beat the others in Top 3 blinded. (Bit of an exaggeration, just to be illustrative ).

Ha ha! Murray is a tennis genius in his own head. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are just ball bashers. Murray generous as always does gives credit where it is due. Federer does "look" good, Djokovic returns more balls (modest Murray admits he isn't so good at that tactic) and Nadal is enthusiastic (like a puppy). Maybe tennis is just too boring for someone of Murray's deceptive intellectual ability. It must be frustrating for him that not everyone recognises it. He perhaps should take up your suggestion and try something that would stretch him a little more. (cough)

https://www.606v2.com/t34932-murray-describes-federer-nadal-djokovic-and-himself

Hawkeye, you do know the more you post the more people like Murray?

Your 'subtle' digs really aren't well disguised and your 'passive aggressive' style has been exposed.
It's a shame because some of your criticisms of Murray could be valid, but your style and blinkered consistency means that people can't connect with your posts.

laverfan wrote:To me Murray is the best tactician of the current Top 4. Fedalovic may have the titles, but Murray, if the current Top 4 were Chess players, rather than Tennis, would probably beat the others in Top 3 blinded. (Bit of an exaggeration, just to be illustrative ).

I really don't agree with that Laverfan. It's a very difficult comparison to make, because the fact of the matter is that they are tennis players, not chess players.

Anyway last year Murray said he played at FIFA against Nadal, and lost.
Parera

IMBL - Waste of words on Hawkeye I'm afraid. But I'm glad you recognise her agenda now.

I just bask in the joy that Murray is now a grand slam champion, which must agitate her soooo much.

Danny_1982 wrote:IMBL - Waste of words on Hawkeye I'm afraid. But I'm glad you recognise her agenda now.

Everyone understands it. As Carrieg said: SSDD
P.S. You can call me Amritia.

Danny_1982 wrote:
I just bask in the joy that Murray is now a grand slam champion, which must agitate her soooo much.

Nadal beat Murray at FIFA.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:
I just bask in the joy that Murray is now a grand slam champion, which must agitate her soooo much.

Nadal beat Murray at FIFA.

Nadal's winning goal was offside.

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:
I just bask in the joy that Murray is now a grand slam champion, which must agitate her soooo much.

Nadal beat Murray at FIFA.

Nadal's winning goal was offside.

NO.
Puyol's left glove marginally kept Ronaldo onside

It Must Be Love wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:
I just bask in the joy that Murray is now a grand slam champion, which must agitate her soooo much.

Nadal beat Murray at FIFA.

Nadal's winning goal was offside.

NO.
Puyol's left glove marginally kept Ronaldo onside

Murray tanked it anyway!

Por Qué? Por Qué?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/13217880

It Must Be Love wrote:Hawkeye, you do know the more you post the more people like Murray?

Your 'subtle' digs really aren't well disguised and your 'passive aggressive' style has been exposed.
It's a shame because some of your criticisms of Murray could be valid, but your style and blinkered consistency means that people can't connect with your posts.

It Must Be Love

I admit that perhaps I could be more "subtle" but when faced with some of the increasingly wild speculation about Murray's superiority over not only other players of a similar ability but over the great Nadal and Federer I can't help responding in a stronger way.

When you know something is white but people keep insisting it is black. You may start by saying maybe you have been mistaken and it's a bit lighter than that. If that doesn't work you may find yourself saying "white" in a subtle way. If that doesn't work and everyone starts talking about how dark and inky the black is eventually if you are like me you are tempted to shout loudly "WHITE". Not necessarily because you think everyone will listen but because you feel it's important to tell the truth.

Nobody is saying Murray is superior to Nadal or Federer
At tennis anyway.

It Must Be Love wrote:Anyway last year Murray said he played at FIFA against Nadal, and lost.
Parera

Didn't Murray claim he won that also

hawkeye wrote: Not necessarily because you think everyone will listen but because you feel it's important to tell the truth.

What truth?
LF said Murray is a better tactician than the Top three. I disagree, but it could be possible. Doesn't mean he is a better player.
And Murray said something in a press conference which was completely twisted by you, and then you 'damned' him for it.
Who are you trying to fool?

It Must Be Love wrote:Nobody is saying Murray is superior to Nadal or Federer
At tennis anyway.

I think you'll find that they are...

And how did I "twist" what Murray said? I provided a quote with a link. Do you think he has been misquoted?

HE... Murray he said that in the first leg they decided to end it as a draw at the end of extra time, but he would have won the penalties. He was being light-hearted, you take these things too seriously

And after Tokyo 2011, (and other occasions) Murray has said that Nadal is one of the greatest of all time. Funny, I haven't seen you report that yet

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Nobody is saying Murray is superior to Nadal or Federer
At tennis anyway.

I think you'll find that they are...

And how did I "twist" what Murray said? I provided a quote with a link. Do you think he has been misquoted?

You twisted his words HE, I'm not a fool.
He said something quite interesting, and spoke about what aspects of the games of the Top 4 make them what they are. You twisted it to make it seem like he was trying to establish his superiority.

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Nobody is saying Murray is superior to Nadal or Federer
At tennis anyway.

I think you'll find that they are...

OK, go on.
Give me one quote on 606v2 where people have said Murray is a superior tennis player compared to Rafael Nadal. Give me just one quote.
LF said he was a better tactician, which I disagree with, but anyway that doesn't make you 'superior.' Tactics is only one part of the game.

[quote="It Must Be Love"]

hawkeye wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Nobody is saying Murray is superior to Nadal or Federer
At tennis anyway.

I think you'll find that they are...

Who exactly as said this? I haven't, Craig hasn't, Banbro hasn't, Danny hasn't, LK hasn't. In fact I am fairly sure that no regular poster who is a supporter of Murray has ever made such a statement on 606v2. Sources please.