If you had choice....

by Guest Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:24 pm

If you had a choice, which single part of Murray's game would you change and how would it make his Grand Slam dream come true ?

The poll reflects posters opinions so far, please feel free to inform me of any add ons or re-wording you think should go on the list.

Its multi choice, so you choose as many as you wish, but try to think which are or is the most important and try to restrict your choices to 1 or 2 picks.
You will be able to change your vote too, if something alters your opinion later.

Might be interesting to see how this pans out.

by socal1976 Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:29 pm

Technically, you might say his forehand and second serve need improving, but they are good enough if he is on form. Strategically, he plays too defensive and too far back in the court. And his attitude of being so negative and capitulating when things don't go his way is another problem. Of these issues I think the most pressing thing keeping him from winning his mentality. he needs to be more positive and to not give up when things are going wrong. He has enough weapons, athleticism, and fitness to do it. He needs to be mentally stronger.

by Guest Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:34 pm

OK socal,you mean his mental toughness needs strengthening, not so much pressure related, but not showing emotions or getting downbeat when a shot goes awry.

Kind of like growing a poker face and promoting an ability to focus his frustrations into his game instead ?

by Solerina Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:50 pm

Jubbahey wrote:......not showing emotions or getting downbeat when a shot goes awry.

Kind of like growing a poker face and promoting an ability to focus his frustrations into his game instead ?

That was going to be my suggestion...he shouldn't show so much emotion even when a shot goes well.....it's probably easier said than done but it's definitely something he needs to work on.

I posted something about this, on here, a while ago,

Solerina

by Haddie-nuff Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:37 pm

Ive never made much pretence in saying what I believe Andy´s problem is and yes its his mindset.. his attitude on court ..beating himself and his team up everytime things dont quite go his way.Its self-defeating. There is nothing wrong with Andy´s game that Andy couldn´t cure. He has after all got all the tools for the job..but I would like to see him dictate more of the game.. force his oponent to play his game rather than involving himself in long defensive rallies from the baseline hoping for mistakes by his oponent. He is better than that

by Guest Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:43 pm

Ok, well so far its a mental approach to his game that needs tweaking, followed by certain parts of his physical game that could do with some improving, if he wants to elevate himself to a Slam title.

Personally, I agree with that, I would also like to see him focus a lot more on his game rather than get carried away with the crowd responses too, He can allow himself to get bogged down with the spectators and their impression of his game, esp if its derogatory, ie, when he goes through a bad patch, he looks like he is sympathising with them and gets down too.

When he plays his own game within himself, he is quite difficult to beat, as we saw in his match against Nadal recently, on a surface he is not comfortable with.

by socal1976 Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:14 pm

Players with less firepower and technical ability than murray have won grandslam titles. Guys like Wilander, Connors, and Hewitt all won multiple slams and none of them are as technically or athletically gifted as Andy. Andy is 6'3, fast, and can hit his serve over 130 mph. Jimmy Connors won 8 grandslams and he could barely hit his serve over 100 mph and had groundstrokes that no self respecting coach would teach, especially after lets say 1970. You put Jimmy's heart and competiveness into Andy's body and shots and Connors would probably win 15-20 slams. Same goes for Wilander. One of these champions was even more fiery than Andy, but he just had the will to win or die trying.

by sportslover Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:29 pm

His serve - When it's firing and he is hitting aces he is difficult to beat.

Problem is it isn't consistent so if he can improve in this department it would help tremendously.

Also when he comes to the net again he is difficult to beat - so less base line play and a bit more adventure thumbsup

by yummymummy Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:46 pm

Andy needs to develop a killer serve - and the killer mentality
to go with it.

Definitely get off the base line and play more agressively. and
practice a Poker Face on court.

by Solerina Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:02 pm

yummymummy wrote:
.......... and
practice a Poker Face on court.

Maybe Lady GaGa should be his new coach

Solerina

by yummymummy Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:31 pm

No!!! She'd have him in steak and liver shorts :flag:

by Guest Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:28 pm

socal1976 wrote:Players with less firepower and technical ability than murray have won grandslam titles. Guys like Wilander, Connors, and Hewitt all won multiple slams and none of them are as technically or athletically gifted as Andy. Andy is 6'3, fast, and can hit his serve over 130 mph. Jimmy Connors won 8 grandslams and he could barely hit his serve over 100 mph and had groundstrokes that no self respecting coach would teach, especially after lets say 1970. You put Jimmy's heart and competiveness into Andy's body and shots and Connors would probably win 15-20 slams. Same goes for Wilander. One of these champions was even more fiery than Andy, but he just had the will to win or die trying.

Socal, the one technical thing they all had that Andy has difficulty in harnessing, is consistency.

Consistency in serving and ground strokes. I like your description of Conners with his unorthodox action, unteachable but it was consistent, very much like Lee Trevino's golf swing, mad but constant.

Nice post too.

by I AM AWESOME Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:53 pm

His mentality and one more thing which I think is more important his coming upto the net. If he can improve his volleys and mix it up I can see him easily being a multiple grand slam winnner.

by Guest Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:20 pm

He does use his S&V tactic sparingly. It seems to bring him some easy points on his serve.

Maybe he has too many shots to choose from ? Ok!

by legendkillar Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:26 pm

I think he needs to be more aggressive against the top 3. There is no doubt in my mind he has the mentality. Jack Nicklaus once said that people who have won titles before need to then elevate that to the Majors. It's very much the same in tennis. For me Murray is the most intelligent player on the tour, his problem is that when faced with an opponent who is able to hit winner after winner consecutively and not make any errors he comes unstuck because he does stick to the gameplan of being conservative and tries to draw errors from the opponent and it fails. Take Wimbledon last year. Against Tsonga he allowed him to hit his shots in the first match as he knew that Tsonga could not maintain that level over 3 sets let alone 4 and once he won the 2nd set on tie break all the commentators said he would go and win. Similar to the opening round at the French Open when he beat Gasquet in 5. When Murray faced Nadal he came stuck because Nadal wasn't missing and wasn't going to make any errors and at that time Murray didn't have the confidence to be aggressive.

He needs to back his forehand because as anyone who saw him against Nadal at Monte Carlo he had Nadal on the ropes and he wasn't missing with his forehand. IF he can replicate that on other surfaces then I can see him winning a slam.

by socal1976 Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:28 pm

Thanks, Jubbahey but the consistency issue again I believe is psychological. If you can do something once, you can do it again. Look at how this season and last season have played out. Murray plays great at the AO gets to the final and lays an egg. Then all of a sudden for a month he can't even win a set against guys not even ranked in the top 100. When Djokovic went into a slump with his serve, you could point and say he has a technical problem. Murray doesn't all of a sudden go from a grandslam finalist to getting straight setted back to back by guys ranked out of the top 100 in the next week, because he lacks firepower or technical ability. He lost his mojo, most players get to a grandslam final and play better afterwards building on that result.

Djokovic last season lost in the 4th round of the Aus, Quarter's of the French, Semi at wimby, and final at the US open. And then he came back and won Australia. Why does Murray get so despondent and nose dive after finals appearances in Australia. He did it in 2010 and again this year. He is wound too tightly mentally. The most important point for a tennis player is the one he is currently playing, what happened last week doesn't exist and what happens in the future doesn't exist either. Murray needs to grasp that fundamental fact.

by legendkillar Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:36 pm

socal1976 wrote:Thanks, Jubbahey but the consistency issue again I believe is psychological. If you can do something once, you can do it again. Look at how this season and last season have played out. Murray plays great at the AO gets to the final and lays an egg. Then all of a sudden for a month he can't even win a set against guys not even ranked in the top 100. When Djokovic went into a slump with his serve, you could point and say he has a technical problem. Murray doesn't all of a sudden go from a grandslam finalist to getting straight setted back to back by guys ranked out of the top 100 in the next week, because he lacks firepower or technical ability. He lost his mojo, most players get to a grandslam final and play better afterwards building on that result.

Djokovic last season lost in the 4th round of the Aus, Quarter's of the French, Semi at wimby, and final at the US open. And then he came back and won Australia. Why does Murray get so despondent and nose dive after finals appearances in Australia. He did it in 2010 and again this year. He is wound too tightly mentally. The most important point for a tennis player is the one he is currently playing, what happened last week doesn't exist and what happens in the future doesn't exist either. Murray needs to grasp that fundamental fact.

Another good analysis there socal. When I think to Djokovic from the 2nd half of 2009 to the hardcourt season leading to the US Open 2010 Djokovic had no confidence in his serve and couldn't sting many points together on his forehand. I think beating Federer at the US Open and winning the Davis Cup helped his mentality massively. That is why he is on fire as he has the confidence in his game and rythym and gone is the times when he would stand there in disbelief in games he was losing and couldn't find it mentality to put together and win the match.

Andre Aggasi used to have slumps like Murray after losing in a grand slam finals and in his book he described that he just couldn't let go of the fact he couldn't win the match and it ate away at him for months and he would go out on court knowing he would lose and would lose matches. I think Murray needs to get back on court when he feels comfortable with it. Take the US Open last year when he lost to Wawrinka. That was the worst I saw and you could see that he shouldn't have been out there as he knew he couldn't and didn't want to win the match.

by socal1976 Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Yes, Murray just needs to forget the past, and I know it is cliched but stay in the moment. When he gets all bent out of shape he usually loses focus. There are some players who get mad and play better. Connors and Mac usually (not always) played good when they were angry. 99 percent of tennis players don't play well when they are upset. Murray certainly could improve his forehand and second serve. But those shots aren't that deficient, he lacks that belief and the proper mindset. Maybe he needs a sports psychologist more desperately than a coach.

by Guest Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:44 pm

The more I read it, the more I warm to the advice for Murray to get a mind coach.

Like you have both said, he doesn't lack anything in the tech dept, but as some other posters have said on here and old 606, he needs to grow out of his teenager-rebellious attitude.
Not so much grow up, but nurture a more mature approach to his mental game.

Is it a mental weakness or a mental puberty he's going through ATM ?

by lydian Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:54 pm

2nd serve for sure...and showing -ve body language on court.

by Solerina Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:01 pm

Hi lydian.......welcome to the forum Smile

Solerina

by legendkillar Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:02 pm

Not so much a mind coach. As Agassi said in his book, some defeats take longer to get over than others. It depends on what motivation he can take from the defeats. After his first defeat at the US Open he didn't slump as bad as he did after his Australian Open defeats. It is a case of experience and that he needs to make sure he is in the right frame of mind to play and that also he can be competitive. I remember Ivanisevic saying when Roddick lost to Federer in the 2009 Wimbledon final that it would take Roddick 5 years to get over it and look at his form since then. There is no need for panic or hysteria. Murray's time will come and that is the belief and motivation that will drive him to be the best player he can be.

by socal1976 Sun May 01, 2011 9:02 am

I have to respectfully disagree with legendkillar on one point. I don't believe Murray can or should try to make S and V tennis the basis of his play. Serve and volley can be used in the modern game but as a variation, unfortunately today S and V is not something that you can do on a regular basis or too much. The passing shots and returns of modern racquets and strings has basically defeated S and V tactics. You can still volley but you have to work your way up after really putting your opponent on the defensive.

by lydian Sun May 01, 2011 9:53 am

Thanks Solerina, thought I'd check the place out seen as my membership of 606 is to soon expire! Looks good, like the simple, clear layout, etc.
I had stopped posting on 606 for a while due to all the bile spouted, etc. So good to see this place is around - just need a few more of the (better) old 606ers to join and more besides I guess!
Cheers.

by lydian Sun May 01, 2011 9:59 am

I agree socal, the slowing of the surfaces has also made S&V a risky business. If the surfaces were as slow as this in the mid-90s you wouldnt have seen nearly as much volleying then either. Its a shame because its made the game so much more 1-dimensional, volleying is now used as a relatively safe way of ending the point - not the out and out risk taking you saw years ago. Also, agree re: strings, although many of the guys today are still using strings from 2001/2002, the court changes are the biggest factor for me.
Lets not forget that Murray is also playing in an era of 3 unbelievable guys ahead of him - Fed, Nad, Djok and thats a tough ask for anyone else to have been winning slams. That said, if he can win Masters you'd hav thought he should be able to win slams really but its something about those extra 4th and 5th sets that seems to be a step too far for him. You feel he has to win a slam in 3 ot 4 sets or else his mental strength isnt great enough to win through. Not sure how you fix that...maybe time will toughen him.

by socal1976 Sun May 01, 2011 4:52 pm

Lydian, a number of factors from strings, to racquets, to court surfaces, and the natural athleticism of players today has contributed to the demise of S and V tennis. I mean how often do you see someone chip and charge a return anymore, pretty much never. Personally, I always preferred the baseliners anyway but nowadays you really can't make S and V the mainstay of your game. In regards to Andy I feel that some how he is wound too tight, he lets little things get to him. I mean how do you go from playing in a grandslam final and then losing to Donald Young in straight sets? Very few tennis players play well when angry, and Andy seems to get angry way too easy. I think he has all the physical gifts to compete and win against the Fed's, Nadal's, and Djokos of the world. But those guys have figured out the mental approach they need to maintain consitency, to play well when all the chips are in play. Not to tighten up but to play your best on the big occasion.

There are a lot of players who have won multiple grandslams who weren't nearly as physically or techically gifted as Andy Murray. What seperates them from the pack is the ability to deal with adversity and to play their best on the big occassion. I think he can and will get to the pinnacle of a grandslam champion. But he is making it very difficult on himself.

by legendkillar Sun May 01, 2011 7:48 pm

Hey socal. I didn't say anything about Andy adding S and V too his game. I don't think in today's game it is a tactic which is successful. For example I know it is a tactic that Llodra and Stepanek try use a lot and against good baseline hitters it is suicide.

by yummymummy Sun May 01, 2011 7:57 pm

Lydian !!!!! kiss

I agree with you Legend :huh:

Serve and Volley is a dying art and is out of place on the surfaces
today. Murray uses the drop shot to draw his opponent to
the net and then "WHAM" - The pass - "thank you very
much"

by lydian Sun May 01, 2011 11:14 pm

Hey yummymummy - thanks Very Happy

Lets hope we get more of the good ex-606ers here too, although a number went to MTL as you know.

by socal1976 Mon May 02, 2011 7:36 am

sorry legendkillar, somebody mentioned more serve and volleying and I assumed it was you.

by Guest Mon May 02, 2011 8:55 pm

Hey Lydian Smile

Its early days yet, who knows, a lot of people might want to be members of several forums. It makes sense in a way, each site has different things to offer.

As time goes by, we may each settle down in one place of choice, but we might as well provide the choice in the first place.

by Solerina Mon May 02, 2011 9:44 pm

Maybe you should add another option to your poll, Jubba, no sex before tennis :run2:

Solerina

by Amazon Mon May 02, 2011 10:22 pm

I think recent events have proved that there's not much wrong with his mental approach, but that second serve

by Guest Mon May 02, 2011 11:11 pm

Amazon....aren't a lot of posters referring to his slam mentality ?

But, yes, his last clay match against Nadal did look like he was getting back to better thought processes and his 2nd serve has never been a weapon, although, who has got one ?

Sol....from your link...."Prior to his fight against Audley Harrison he said: ‘I think a man is at his most dangerous when he hasn’t had sex for six weeks"

If he was a wrestler, I'd be scared !

by Guest Mon May 02, 2011 11:49 pm

Amazon wrote:I think recent events have proved that there's not much wrong with his mental approach, but that second serve

Does the second serve depend on mental strength?

by socal1976 Tue May 03, 2011 5:45 am

I have to disagree with Amazon, yes Andy needs to improve and fine tune some technical areas to his game. The second serve for sure is the weakest link in the armor. And it is a hugely important shot. But his second serve has been good enough to get to 3 grandslam finals and win six master's. It isn't a horrible delivery, again I think more confidence and he would hit the second serve a bit more aggressively. A guy who has any many wins as he has over Fed and Nadal is not lacking in shots, but to get a grandslam final and lose 9 straight sets and to lose your cool and focus and easily as he does seems to me to be as a result of getting too tight.

by yummymummy Tue May 03, 2011 8:04 pm

Solerina wrote:Maybe you should add another option to your poll, Jubba, no sex before tennis :run2:

Solerina

Aaaand WHY NOT ????? Whistle

by Guest Tue May 03, 2011 11:14 pm

Cos it saps all your tostestorone (I used to think that was Dark choco toblerone) and makes your legs feel heavy.

Methinks "getting one's leg over" means different things to different people !

by Guest Wed May 04, 2011 2:24 pm

OK, have added an option for the "Girlies" out there laughing

Please, can you all check your choices, it is multiple choice and is editable....mmmm....yummy.

Make any changes you think you need to do in the coming days and I'll close the poll this Sunday night (hint-hint), after we have seen him in action in Madrid.

cheers peeps

by exiledscotinwhales Wed May 04, 2011 6:11 pm

Hi all - first reply on 606v2 from ex-606er Very Happy

Never posted on the beeb tennis forum (& rarely other sports truth be told..) - as every decent tennis thread seemed to be peppered with comments along the lines of "Murray/Nadal/Fed/Djoko <delete as appropriate> is rubbish".

Have read through a few topics on here now and what a refreshing change ! So here I am...

I'm a Murray fan and believe he certainly CAN win a GS.

My 10p worth on the original poll >>

I could spend hours typing away on the (very) small points I think he needs to work on. But I think you missed an option out - FIRST SERVE !

In the games he loses, typically his 1st serve % drops below 50 (often way below at certain times during sets).

So he struggles to hold serve which puts pressure on his (excellent) returning game and this is where he seems to go into a downwards spiral as he tries to force both his serve and other aspects of his game.

Even in matches he wins "easily", he can often go off the boil and randomly struggle on a few service games. This has puzzled me for years as the only aspect of tennis you can control is your serve - as you are putting the ball into play. You don't even need someone to practise against !!!

Interested to hear if anyone agrees - or not Wink

By the way - I am deliberately not mentioning the mental aspect of this yet - will save it for later !

Cheers...

by socal1976 Wed May 04, 2011 6:34 pm

excitedscot, certainly there are some technical areas that could be improved. His forehand is steaky, sometimes it is great, sometimes it is awful. His second serve could be stronger. But the question was what is the one thing you would pick to improve. To me it is mental attitude. The difference in terms of shots and talent between the very top players in the game is really small. But what makes Federer or Nadla what they are is that ability to deliver more often than not on the big points on the big stage. I mean you can watch a close match and the guy that wins will win something like 179 to 177 of total points won in a match. The guy who wins the big matches is the player who wins the big points. The margins are very thin at the top in terms of technical and athletic ability. As an NBa basketball fan its what we call killer instinct, the guy thrives on taking the last second shot with the game on the line. Kobe bryant, Michael Jordan, and Magic johnson had it. In tennis Nadal, fed, Sampras; all have it or had it: well Andy just doesn't, not yet at least.

But I think you do make a very fair and not often mentioned point that typically in the matches that Murray struggles in he serves a very low percentage of first serves. But again this true of most players, when they get a high percentage of firsts in they usually perform well.

by Solerina Wed May 04, 2011 9:19 pm

exiledscotinwhales wrote:Hi all - first reply on 606v2 from ex-606er

Welcome to the forum, Exiled, hope you like it here Smile

Solerina

by exiledscotinwhales Wed May 04, 2011 9:42 pm

Thanks for your reply socal and hi !

Agree on the mental aspect and think it's worthy of a complete thread (books(s) even !) on its' own...

Overall his technical game is excellent. As someone posted earlier above, perhaps his sheer range of shot ability may cloud his strategy in the very biggest (well, Grand Slam Finals as he's won all the other) matches !? Perhaps ??

He's beaten all the players ranked above him in big matches. He's come up short in 3 GS finals, however each time he's played someone ranked higher and so is expected to lose. No real disgrace there.

It's almost impossible to divorce the mental aspect of sport from any level - however at the elite level Murray is at, any flaw in technique will be exposed.

I respectfully stand by my point that his service action (1st & 2nd) has a technical flaw. He is often an excellent server, over 130 mph and can cruise through service games. But under any kind of pressure it is pretty much his only shot that can - in mid-match - drop to appalling % levels of even down to the 30's-percentage.

This puts so much pressure on the rest of his game he is unlikely to win the match. It happens in many of his matches - even on a good run - but on the pressure of his GS finals so far he has been unable to recover. But as I said - played against Fed (x2) and Djoko - both ranked higher...

Considering he has been ranked in the top 4 for the last 3-4 years it shows how good the rest of his game is.

Now - how about a new thread on the mental stuff !!!!

by Guest Wed May 04, 2011 10:02 pm

Hi Exiled, welcome to V2.

His 1st serve..mmm...thats not something I've considered actually. I have always pigeonholed that in the "safe" recess.

Your thoughts about his decent into the 30% margin rings alarm bells, as I remember he does do that quite often, but, and its a big but, he does recuperate as many times as lose a match, I'd say its about 50/50, but yes, his 1st serve can go awry too much at critical times.

is that another aspect of his mental strength ?

"Now - how about a new thread on the mental stuff !!!!"

Off you go my boy and don't spare the horses, your first article may well end up with a record number of posts.

by Guest Wed May 04, 2011 10:05 pm

another edit of the poll choices !!!!!

Since no-one thinks that Murray's game needs more S&V'ing to win a slam, I will change it to "1st serve" and lets see if that ruffles any feathers.

by Stealth Maestro Agro Love Wed May 04, 2011 10:10 pm

Not changing my mind Jubbahey, we must have facial hair.

A handlebar, early 1900's style to be precise. Thick plumage, the untamed lion's mane of manliness. Only with that will Murray have the stones to go all the way. Untill then he'll continue to resemble a teenager who's stuck his head in a bowl of spaghetti.

by exiledscotinwhales Wed May 04, 2011 10:25 pm

Thanks and Hi Jubba...

Yes - no way of separating any aspect of sport from the mental level.

My point is that Murray's 1st serve is his first shot to, well, at times, descend to almost hacker levels of success under any kind of pressure.

Not always on the overall match average (although of course drags it down), but in crucial mid-match parts of sets he sometimes basically "can't" serve and is down in the 30's.

In a GS final against top ranked players you need to hold your serve - as everyone knows it comes down to a few major points. With a failing service game, even for only part of a set, I would argue you cannot compete.

As "socal" mentioned above - Sampras service games were a "gimme". A 130+ mph 1st serve and a stunning 125mph 2nd - still not equalled for consistency I think (am I wrong ?) ?? The consistency was amazing and with a certain hold he raised his game at crucial moments to break serve and therefore win the match.

Andy needs to work on his service technique as I think it appears to be the first aspect of his game that fails when under any pressure.

After that - we can work on everything else...

by exiledscotinwhales Wed May 04, 2011 11:21 pm

Solerina wrote:
exiledscotinwhales wrote:Hi all - first reply on 606v2 from ex-606er

Welcome to the forum, Exiled, hope you like it here

Solerina

thanks Sol - look forward to loadsa chats....

by socal1976 Thu May 05, 2011 6:39 am

ٍExcited, again your point is a fair one. But what is interesting to note here is that big serving is no longer the premium that is was in Sampras or Mac's era. If you look at the top players today. Nadal, Djoko, and Murray none of them are overwhelming big servers. Today it seems that unlike any other era the big returners are dominating the game.

But you are right typically in matches he struggles his first percentage drops dramitically.

by Guest Fri May 06, 2011 6:38 pm

Well, that was quite unexpected, Murray losing in that way, but its stumped this articles pretence of finding just what makes his game unreliable.

Didnt see the match so can't comment, but the score doesn't look good on paper, seems like this consistency thing and his 1st serve went out the window.

Just what this brings to the table in terms of reasons for his quick demise at the hands of Belucci is debatable, but something is wrong when he plays like this, didn't look even close, anyone see the match ?

by Sponsored content

Which choice or choices do you feel Murray needs to improve to win a slam ?