Can we say that Murray's forehand is a weapon and not a weakness now?

I have been very impressed with murray, and as djoko fan a bit frightened at his marked improvement since adding Ivan as the skipper of the team. His second serve looks better all though at time he still arms them in when under pressure and his forehand to me looks much better. He could always hit big shots with it but it was very inconsistent and because of that fact he would often dial it back too much. I also have noticed a better and more concerted effort to go up the line with that shot. In the past, I have felt that his technique was somewhat herky jerky on that side and there was a subtle hitch in the swing, and that he didn't get the proper rotation on the forehand. His stance I felt was more open than lets say a djoko, Nadal, or federer and thus the forehand was not as penetrating or as heavy as it should be. To me it seems he does a better job of closing his stance and getting sideways before he hits and that subtle little hitch is not as pronouced. I am interested where you guys would rate Andy's forehand, early in the match it was superior to Novak's as Novak was spraying errors left and right. As the match wore on by the second set Novak found his range on that wing and started to win the forehand v. forehand exchanges. Then when murray hit the physical wall his forehand did go off boil. But during the course of the match when he was feeling fit he gave up very, very few errors and was penetrating the court with the shot much better. My personal feeling is that if he doesn't have a top 10 forehand it is certainly among the top 15 forehands on tour and could be higher. And when does get hot with it he can hold his own on that wing against pretty much anyone or even top them on his day. I still don't feel like his up the line forehand is quite as fluid as djokovic's and I also don't feel like his forehand is as heavy or has as much margin. But I do believe that we need to stop thinking about his forehand as if it is a liability or a relative weakness. I think it is a weapon for him now. Part of this can also be down to better serving. More short balls from quality first and second serves makes your forehand look better. And conversly a good forehand can make your serve numbers, particularly in terms of serving games won look better. The short forehand and the serve afterall being linked, it isn't afterall just how well you serve it is important how well you back it up.

Good article Socal thanks for posting. The forehand has definitely improved since Lendl came on board.

Like his forehand, very nice, smooth and effortless. Would take it over Delpo's any day.

Its become so much better but I would still say its the weakest of the top 4 guys. On the defensive as well I think he struggles to slice on that side on the run, it doesn't have much 'bite'

Thanks everyone excellent comments, I agree that in comparison to the other top 4 CAS his forehand would still be rated as #4, but I mean with Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic we are talking about some pretty amazing forehands that have been the basis of their games. Murray I think probably has a top 10 forehand. Chydremion I agree that del Po lacks some variety and angle of the forehand but I still view his forehand on raw power as one of the best in the game.

Carrie I think Lendl deserves a lot of credit the man as player was a very precise student of the game and a hard task master, precisely I believe what murray needed.

Andy is an incredible player but if you were to create the perfect player from using just the attributes of the top 4, I dont think any part of his game would get in? I could be wrong, its an interesting topic.

I would go, Federer serve, Nadal forehand, Djokovic backhand, Federer slice, Federer smash, Djokovic return, Djokovic movement, Nadals mind, Federer volley. Murrays got an awesome first serve, backhand, slice and return by I think each one is pipped by someone else in the top 4.

His Britishness?

People would argue with me but I would take Andy's volleys and his slice over federer's CAS. Roger is a good volleyer as well but it is very close. I love that little inside out up the line slice backhand Andy has with wicked side spin. I keep seeing him hit and I have been trying my poor man's version on the court since. It drives a western forehand bat crap crazy.

The thing with Federer's volleys is he hits much more difficult ones, comes in on awesome passing shot players and hits some incredible half volleys at the net, or drop volleys. With Murray and Nadal they are usually sweeping up at the net, they wouldn't come to net to with the sole intention to volley, but when there is a short ball mainly, just my opinion anyway.

I believe that if Murray wants to get to World Number 1 and establish himself there, he needs to increase the power of his forehand again so that it becomes the biggest forehand in the men's game (bigger than Berdych's forehand which is currently the biggest in the men's game at present in terms of raw power). That will be the challenge now for Murray and his coach Ivan Lendl.

Fair enough CAS roger comes in a lot more so I guess I have seen him miss more often at net and maybe that has colored my opinion. Andy certainly is behind the other 3 guys in terms of his game but again we are talking about razor thin margins and federer is slowly giving ground, I think right now i would rather have murray's first serve than Roger's as well. Right now, not historically speaking. You can argue about the slice and the volleys, I agree Roger could be rated higher in those areas. But right now I would take murray's first serve over Roger.

yeah the pairs slices are very close, I think ironically Murray is more aggressive with his slice and Federer uses it to mix it up. When Murrays first serve goes in its absolutely awesome, the issue with it is the percentage, over a season I would take Federer's but when Murrays is hot its quite the weapon

Good article socal.

His forehand is now a big weapon. He still can drop it a bit short when on the back foot. And he used to struggle with short low slices to the forehand, but I've not seen that for a while.

Apart from the occasional short second serve, he doesn't really have a weakness now. He could still be more aggressive at key moments (those 3 crucial BPs in the second set for example) but he is moving forward.

It's a shame he ran out of steam a bit on Sunday, for the spectacle more than anything, but sometimes the schedule works for you and sometimes it doesn't. Novak played the day before the final in New York, so it's swings and roundabouts.

He's now beaten all of his main 3 rivals in slams and reached the last 3 finals. So it's an upward curve. Nobody has ever got so close to winning their first 2 slams consecutively and that needs to be remembered.

I think Andy will win Wimbledon this year. And as I've said before, people had better get used to Novak v Andy slam finals as there's going to be a bloody lot of them over the next few years.

As for which shots of Andy's would make a 'best of top 4' I'd say his first serve, his slice, his forehand pass would be up there and he'd be up there with volleys if he ever bloody decides to use them! Definitely not his smash though, bloody awful.

I do wonder with that slice and those volleys why he is so insistent to be passive in his court positioning still, he rarely if ever ventures to the net. I mean Djokovic hit one of the best backhand cross court passes I have ever seen from 2 yards behind the baseline and wide of the sideline, murray picked it up off the ground and executed and immaculate drop volley. Very few players in the world can make that volley. Yet Novak was the one moving in for the whole match and Andy almost never does. Lendl needs to get him to be more aggressive with the court positioning.

socal1976 wrote:Carrie I think Lendl deserves a lot of credit the man as player was a very precise student of the game and a hard task master, precisely I believe what murray needed.

Couldn't agree more

Novak has the worst smash of the bunch frankly he almost side arms it. Bizarre that one of the easier shots in the game is what gives him trouble. Thanks for the nice post Danny, I also am left scratching my head why with the slice that he does have and the volleys he does have why he almost never does volley. Don't get me wrong I am not talking about classical net rushing, but this is the second straight grandslam final where Novak Djokovic has double and trippled up murray in net approaches. His court positioning needs to be more aggressive so that he can hit those mid court balls and drive volleys and finish the guy off at net if need be.

Yeah socal, one of the things he worked on in Miami this winter with lendl was coming to the net to shorten points... So with less in the tank than his opponent, you would have thought he'd have tried that on Sunday.

I'm going to have to watch Novak's smash more closely because I was convinced nobody in the top 30 could have one as bad as Andy's, let alone the top 4!

It is terrible Danny, he hit one into the net against murray that luckily dribbled over and another one where the ball was 3/4s of he way out on the sideline. He hit a lot of overheads against murray and made them all, but really got lucky and should have missed two sitters.

It is like he still doesn't trust himself and reverts to passivity at times. The really infuriating thing is that, on the occasions he does come into the net, he has great feel and volleys but he just does not do it enough

Overall he is still a work in progress. Every now and then you get a glimpse of the player he could be if he trusted himself more. He is so close and I suppose it says a lot that he is as good as he is and still has a lot of potential to do more.

Spot on carrie. It is a scary thought that we have multiple threads here musing about areas Andy is weak in and yet he has reached the last three slam finals and narrowly missed out on winning back-to-back slams. I would say that gives us Murray fans plenty to be excited about.

Craig, I would say that my thread was not designed to discuss murray's weakness, in fact quite the opposite to discuss a shot of his that has been called a weakness but which I believe is actually one of the best on tour. Not he handful of best forehands but at least top 10 or 15.

Very good post Carrie, the margin between him and the number one in the world is extremely thin. It is whoever executes better and feels it on the given day.

socal1976 wrote:Craig, I would say that my thread was not designed to discuss murray's weakness, in fact quite the opposite to discuss a shot of his that has been called a weakness but which I believe is actually one of the best on tour. Not he handful of best forehands but at least top 10 or 15.

Very good post Carrie, the margin between him and the number one in the world is extremely thin. It is whoever executes better and feels it on the given day.

I'd say his forehand is better than that. Top 5 even. He can find angles that few can, particularly cross court.

I've never been less bothered by a Murray loss in a big match. He's no longer trying to break through, he's there. His next slam is when not if in my opinion. That may be something that fans of Novak, Rafa or Roger have been used to for a while... But it's a new feeling for a Murray fan. Makes me more relaxed watching him.

Top 5 No danny, but I am with you there in top 10. I would rate Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Tsonga, and Del Po as having bigger forehands I know some have questioned del pos and he does lack variety with it I give you that.

If the question is bigger, then no he's not top 5.

Tsonga and Delpo can both hit it with more power, but neither of them have the angles or variety. And both are just as likely to lose a match on the forehand as win it. Delpo can find some decent angles at times, but not as consistently. Also, neither of those can hit the forehand as well from virtually hopeless defensive positions.

So I guess it depends what goes into defining a good forehand. For me, it's top 5 when you factor in the above things, although I appreciate its not as box office.

No Danny you are correct a lot goes into analyzing the forehand, murray does some things better and the other guys do, I am looking as the totality of circumstances but my own personal opinion is that those guys get more mileage out of their forehands warts and all.


Even little David has great consistency and precision with his forehand, more so than Tsonga or Del Po, but I can't say it is a bigger weapon for him than the other guys. With the forehand hitting it harder than the other guy is a big part but of course not nearly the whole discussion by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah I don't think it's as explosive as the guys you mention, but all round I believe it's up there. Especially now.

If you bring it down to basics, roughly 50% of the shots he hits are forehands. If 50% of his shots are hit with a stroke that is only around 15th best in the world then god knows how he's won a slam, reached 2 other slam finals and taken Olympic gold in the last 6 or so months!

Would I swap his forehand for Tsonga's or Delpo's and gain all that power but lose the angles, consistency, cross court pass, ability to put it on people's laces when at the net, crazy retrieval winners?.... No way to be honest.

He was winning the forehand battles with Federer in Melbourne... That's how much it has improved. That was unthinkable 18 months ago.

That is why I put it as a top 10 forehand. You must remember danny serving and returning are the biggest factors in success of a player in terms of striking. On the ATP tour despite the great defense and counterpunching of players the majority of the time the guy who is in a better position after the first ball wins the majority of points. Now guys like Djoko or murray can win more from a defensive position, but still serve and return out weigh the value of either forehand or backhand. And in the past murray finished top 4 and I would say his forehand wasn't even in the top 15 and most people probably would agree. The forehand while the most imporant ground stroke is only a small part of the formula when looking at factors like serving, returning, and speed.

That's another aspect that I left out of my analysis... The forehand return. There's no way I'd swap it with Tsonga's or Delpo's.

I agree with you that the things you list are vital for a top player, but I still think the Murray forehand overall is nowadays top 5 or so. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I didn't see the match because travelling at the time and listening to commentary on 5 live while allowing me to follow, doesn't really give you much idea of how either player is performing.

Murray did seem, according to said commentary, to tire after losing the 2nd set tie break and I do wonder whether his 5 set semi played a part in emotional as well as physical exhaustion from that point onwards?

Danny_1982 wrote:Yeah I don't think it's as explosive as the guys you mention, but all round I believe it's up there. Especially now.

If you bring it down to basics, roughly 50% of the shots he hits are forehands. If 50% of his shots are hit with a stroke that is only around 15th best in the world then god knows how he's won a slam, reached 2 other slam finals and taken Olympic gold in the last 6 or so months!

Would I swap his forehand for Tsonga's or Delpo's and gain all that power but lose the angles, consistency, cross court pass, ability to put it on people's laces when at the net, crazy retrieval winners?.... No way to be honest.

He was winning the forehand battles with Federer in Melbourne... That's how much it has improved. That was unthinkable 18 months ago.

I agree Murray's forehand has improved a lot, but winning the forehand battles had more to do with the decline of Federer's forehand. Federer's peak forehand will always be better than Murray's, no matter how much he improves.

Chydremion wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Yeah I don't think it's as explosive as the guys you mention, but all round I believe it's up there. Especially now.

If you bring it down to basics, roughly 50% of the shots he hits are forehands. If 50% of his shots are hit with a stroke that is only around 15th best in the world then god knows how he's won a slam, reached 2 other slam finals and taken Olympic gold in the last 6 or so months!

Would I swap his forehand for Tsonga's or Delpo's and gain all that power but lose the angles, consistency, cross court pass, ability to put it on people's laces when at the net, crazy retrieval winners?.... No way to be honest.

He was winning the forehand battles with Federer in Melbourne... That's how much it has improved. That was unthinkable 18 months ago.

I agree Murray's forehand has improved a lot, but winning the forehand battles had more to do with the decline of Federer's forehand. Federer's peak forehand will always be better than Murray's, no matter how much he improves.

Federer's forehand is probably the greatest weapon tennis has ever seen, and I fully agree that it is not as good as it was in 2006. But being able to win that battle in a slam - even though its not what it one was - is still notable. Also it would have been unthinkable 18 months ago.

This may have been said but for me it has obviously improved, but murray is renowned for his defence and BH, that still hasn't changed.
He has just improved his artillery somewhat, but no way is it a weapon or a shot to be feared. It seems its only a weapon against feds!

It's improved greatly but it's not sufficient to hit through someone like Djokovic (yet). He can hold his own against pretty much everyone now forehand to forehand but I'd be interested to see it against Nadal when he's back. Only then can I be confident that it's "good enough".

The Special Juan wrote:It's improved greatly but it's not sufficient to hit through someone like Djokovic (yet). He can hold his own against pretty much everyone now forehand to forehand but I'd be interested to see it against Nadal when he's back. Only then can I be confident that it's "good enough".

Murray if he wants to hit a forehand through Djokovic consistently needs to increase its power to the levels that Lukas Rosol hit his forehand shots V Nadal at Wimbledon last year.

gboycottnut wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:It's improved greatly but it's not sufficient to hit through someone like Djokovic (yet). He can hold his own against pretty much everyone now forehand to forehand but I'd be interested to see it against Nadal when he's back. Only then can I be confident that it's "good enough".

Murray if he wants to hit a forehand through Djokovic consistently needs to increase its power to the levels that Lukas Rosol hit his forehand shots V Nadal at Wimbledon last year.

If he does that most likely he errors himself of the court. I don't think he needs a dramatic rework of the shot, it is pretty good now which 18 months ago I don't think it was nearly as good.

Luvsports, I think it is a shot that is feared now and his a weapon more than capable of doing damage to anyone. Early on the first set and half, Novak's forehand was misfiring terribly while Murray was penetrating the court quite effectively with his forehand and he did the same thing to federer and every other opponent he played at the AO. Now if you drop a short ball to Murray's forehand your stunned if he doesn't win the point, at least that is the way I feel when I watch him play.

@Danny we are argueing about very small margins and details, a top 10 forehand vs. lets say a top 5. Either way I think that shot is a weapon, and it can hold its own against anyone when he is hitting it well, and that now he hits it well much more often.

I find Murray's FH is more of a liability than a weakness.

For me I have no doubt that on the practice courts he probably boffs a few meathy FH's in rallies. However the issue I have with it is like his second serve. Such a reluctance and lack of confidence on the big points to really swing through the shot. He has a FH, but he can't he hit a flat and true FH. He seems confident to go cross court with it, however in the deuce court he finds it increasingly difficult not just to work the angles, but put any weight behind it. He doesn't hit a low ball on the FH and hence why it seems he doesn't have a FH all together.

There are rare moments in matches that he dictates points with the FH and rythym seems fine. However, against better opponents it becomes more of a groundstroke to keep him in rallies than an off the bat winner.

He has a FH. All players do. However I think his belief in it as a shot that can earn him many points is severly lacking and I would imagine Lendl has urged him to show more belief and courage with the FH. When I have seen him in those pressure moments in matches he doesn't swing through properly and that reluctance has cost him many points over his career. A more aggressive mindset might just seem him use it more in matches.

I disagree LK, I actually think it is a very good forehand and early on the match against Djoko and in the match against federer he was bossing all the rallies with it. He passes and returns particularly well with that shot and I think we need to take that into consideration. Lately I have been noticing that he pounces on the short mid court forehand and hits virtually every one for a winner. He still has some work to do with the down the line forehand and he doesn't have that wicked heavy spinning short angled forehand that Djokovic has to the cross court that opens up the court. He likes to crank the cross court forehand flat and hard but still since last year I feel like he is dictating much more with the shot.

I think there are so many players with better fh's 2bh, deffo not in the top 15 imo. each to their own.