Andy Murray - has he kicked on?

Much has been made about Andy finally claiming a slam and general consensus appears to be that he has gone up a level.

Is this really so though?

Some things to consider:

1) His match record since USO is 30-8. Good but not astonishing.

2) Since USO, he has gained 3,590 ranking points. Over the same events 12 months previously he gained 3,440. So no significant upturn there. (note: I excluded WTF for the sake of comparison - he withdrew in 2011).

3) He withdrew from Dubai to be ready for IW/Miami. He won Miami but made only the QF at IW.

4) Although early days, the clay season has not started well - beaten 1-6 2-6 in his second match.

So I ask the question: has Andy really moved up a level? Or is he, despite the slam now on his CV, at pretty much the same level?

For those that think he has improved, how do you explain his subsequent results being pretty much the same as previous years?


I ask this not to make a dig at Andy. It's just that I've written loads about Novak and Rafa and I need to talk about something else!

HM Murdoch. The problem is we are all missing Federer. He didn't even get to say anything when he dropped below Andy in the rankings. You know what I bet he didn't even know. But don't worry he will be back in a couple of weeks and we'll all have more to talk about. Maybe someone could ask him his opinion on the existence of MurrayV2?

This is all very subjective I feel.

For many years many people refused to acknowledge Andy's standing in the game until he won a slam and now he has managed it. If you take into account the strides he has made since Lendl has become his coach the strides are evident. Straight away he very nearly beat man-of-the-moment Djokovic in the Australian Open semi, he reached his first Wimbledon final, won Olympic Gold, won his first slam in the US Open and followed that up with his third successive slam final at the beginning of this year. I would say that was a huge kick on from where he was 18 months ago. Sure tournament wins may not be rattling in left, right and centre but there can be no doubt he has stepped up a level under Lendl.

I have yet to see anything concrete to show me a new man. that forehand which had apparently improved to Super Saiyan 3 still looks decidedly Kaio ken. But made four Slam finals previously, so did he have to go 50-0 to prove he is a serious contender in any case?

I think he is more impressive in the bigger matches, he still has off days but in the past when he came up against Novak, Rafa and Roger there was an inevitability about it. Now, I watch those matches with him in and you know he could actually win, I would say his base level is no better but his maximum has increased

CaledonianCraig wrote:This is all very subjective I feel.

For many years many people refused to acknowledge Andy's standing in the game until he won a slam and now he has managed it. If you take into account the strides he has made since Lendl has become his coach the strides are evident. Straight away he very nearly beat man-of-the-moment Djokovic in the Australian Open semi, he reached his first Wimbledon final, won Olympic Gold, won his first slam in the US Open and followed that up with his third successive slam final at the beginning of this year. I would say that was a huge kick on from where he was 18 months ago. Sure tournament wins may not be rattling in left, right and centre but there can be no doubt he has stepped up a level under Lendl.

Craig - I'm playing Devil's Advocate a bit here but that marvellous Wimbledon -Olympics -USO sequence was preceded by a pretty shaky clay season and first match exit at IW. It has been followed by a very patchy set of results: AO was good, WTF was poor. Miami was a bit scruffy but got the result, MC was very poor.

Is there not a risk that his summer hot streak is adding gloss to otherwise fairly standard (for him) results?

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch. The problem is we are all missing Federer. He didn't even get to say anything when he dropped below Andy in the rankings. You know what I bet he didn't even know. But don't worry he will be back in a couple of weeks and we'll all have more to talk about. Maybe someone could ask him his opinion on the existence of MurrayV2?

HE, I salute you and bow for bringing some humor to the V2 forum.

On serious note to the thread, Murray doesn't look like he has stepped up indeed he himself is not worried about it much which is a disappointment.

I get the distinct impression, intentional or not, that Andy focusses far more attention on the slams now and less so on even Masters. That may be an off-shoot of the obsession everyone connected with him had about him getting that first slam win has rubbed off on him putting more stock on slams and being less bothered about his other form at non-slams. I don't know that is mere speculation of course. I do see what you are saying about other results not being great ie clay, early and late hard court's last year but if you were to ask me say 18 months ago that Andy could either win one slam every year until the end of his career or win none but go on winning three, four or five lesser tournies for the rest of his career I know which I would choose.

I personally don't see Andy as being a player that will dominate the circuit as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is now doing but will be there to be a thorn in their side certainly.

Lets not forget that it took Djokovic 3 years of turmoil and change to win his second slam. I don't think Andy will have to wait nearly as long because he is more mature as a man than Novak was in 08 and more experienced at the top level. I think Murray has done incredibly well getting to the final of the AO after winning at the USO and he really should have beat Novak in shanghai last year. There is such a thing as a sophomore slump in sports once you reach the pinnacle it can be difficult to get back there right away for a host of reasons, weight of expectation, motivation etc. That being said I think murray wins more slams and does elevate himself to a true great of the game.

but last year wasnt his freshman year. It wasnt even his freshman year in the big leagues. And there is no slump, he levelled. He could still kick on (depending on your definition of kicking on), but there is no slump

As a matter of interest HM - what do you expect him to kick on to do? Not on the wind-up I hope you understand it is just that he has reached the last three slam finals (winning one) plus become Olympic Champion and recently won a Masters. Monte Carlo was a big disappointment for sure but if you are expecting him to kick on to world domination I think that is asking too much as I don't think Andy will ever really reach that level. That is not to say I don't see him winning more slams as I do but utter domination and surging to world No.1 I don't see it happening but that is by no means a disgrace or a failure.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch. The problem is we are all missing Federer. He didn't even get to say anything when he dropped below Andy in the rankings. You know what I bet he didn't even know. But don't worry he will be back in a couple of weeks and we'll all have more to talk about. Maybe someone could ask him his opinion on the existence of MurrayV2?

HE, I salute you and bow for bringing some humor to the V2 forum.

On serious note to the thread, Murray doesn't look like he has stepped up indeed he himself is not worried about it much which is a disappointment.

What makes you think he is not worried about it ? Bit of a throwaway comment

Been a bit of an odd year recently. At what should be his peak, he has only played one more event so far than semi-retired Roger Federer. I presume he is basically keeping his powder dry for a big push at the Wim-US Open double.

I think a lot of people expected him to kick on to really challenge Djokovic for supremacy and he hasn't quite moved up that extra mental level. Personally, I thought he might play with an easy confidence after that win but it hasn't quite looked that way at present. We've probably only seen Murray actually play well in a handful of matches since the US triumph.

CAS wrote:I think he is more impressive in the bigger matches, he still has off days but in the past when he came up against Novak, Rafa and Roger there was an inevitability about it. Now, I watch those matches with him in and you know he could actually win, I would say his base level is no better but his maximum has increased

Perfectly put.

Lets be honest, his level only really needed to go up in slam semis and slam finals. I didn't and don't ever expect him to be consistent enough to be world number 1, particularly with his clay form (which I don't see improving ever) but his last 12 months have included some notable steps forward.

Beating Federer in 5 set match twice, had never done it before.
Beating Novak in 5 set match, had never done it before.
Reached Wimbledon final.
Reached 3 consecutive slam finals.

Also, there are changes he has implemented. Higher up the court and unleashing on the forehand... And the biggest difference of all, being ultra aggressive on his second shot on service games. Rarely mentioned, but the biggest change IMO.

So yes, steps forward that I believe will result in more slams... But not a noticeable week to week difference, if that makes sense.

Danny_1982 wrote:

CAS wrote:I think he is more impressive in the bigger matches, he still has off days but in the past when he came up against Novak, Rafa and Roger there was an inevitability about it. Now, I watch those matches with him in and you know he could actually win, I would say his base level is no better but his maximum has increased

Perfectly put.

Lets be honest, his level only really needed to go up in slam semis and slam finals. I didn't and don't ever expect him to be consistent enough to be world number 1, particularly with his clay form (which I don't see improving ever) but his last 12 months have included some notable steps forward.

Beating Federer in 5 set match twice, had never done it before.
Beating Novak in 5 set match, had never done it before.
Reached Wimbledon final.
Reached 3 consecutive slam finals.

Also, there are changes he has implemented. Higher up the court and unleashing on the forehand... And the biggest difference of all, being ultra aggressive on his second shot on service games. Rarely mentioned, but the biggest change IMO.

So yes, steps forward that I believe will result in more slams... But not a noticeable week to week difference, if that makes sense.

I couldn't have put it better myself Danny.

kingraf wrote:but last year wasnt his freshman year. It wasnt even his freshman year in the big leagues. And there is no slump, he levelled. He could still kick on (depending on your definition of kicking on), but there is no slump

Yes, not really saying he was a rookie but it does take some time mentally adjust to that first slam for some players. The added hype, the added expectation, the tendency to rest on one's laurels. That being said Danny does make a great point murray did play in three straight slam finals so it is maybe a bit more leveling off from the high of last summer. To me I don't really see much of drop off either, novak and Nadal in my mind are still better but murray has closed the gap.

No worries. Wasnt trying to belittle, or sarcastically put you down, mate. I agree with what Danny said though. Andy hasnt pushed on but its a lot tougher to go from 98% to 98,5% than it is to go from say 55% to 70%.
Its a universal principle, wether in school, training, suping up your car. The closer you get to your limits, the harder it is to squeeze returns

I think the end of last season was a slight disappointment after an incredible summer. But then no player has won their first slam and then gone on to immediate domination. It still amazes me that no player EVER has won the next slam after winning their first. Murray has come closer than anyone to achieving it... But of all the great dominant players, they all failed in the next slam.

Whilst a lot if players broke through younger, in part it must be because how does one react to attaining ones dream? In the immediate aftermath, can someone really be as hungry as just before their first?

Perhaps it takes a couple of tough defeats to reignite the hunger. For all players ever, not just Murray. Maybe the AO final defeat and the inevitable FO defeat will get him back to that level of hunger.

But at a high level, Murray is a big contender at 3 slams a year and that will continue for the next couple if years at least I think. I've said it a few times, but I think he'll win Wimbledon this year.

I actually think Andy with that big first serve could be very dangerous at wimby Danny. I would make him and Roger my 1 and 2 favorites and no I am not playing down Novak's chances or managing expectations. That is how I see it.

Yeah socal, Nocak doesn't move quite as comfortably on grass but he has taken home the trophy so has to be a favourite.

I would actually put Rafa just above Roger, otherwise I agree.

It's the toughest one to call, purely because the no.1 isn't as comfortable and the old gentlemen of the group will have less body strain on the lush green stuff. That top 4 is congested anyway, but even more so at Wimbledon.

He improved his forehand (most important) and mental strength a little too. And maybe slightly on fitness. And actually, maybe on serve as well. As a result, he was a better player in 2012. He may not have been chasing after minor tournaments with much determination as in the past, and may have learned to tank a few even, so the results for that year on W/L % may not have been spectacular but at the Olympics and the US Open he got the job done in the important matches.

The real improvement was made in 2012, and right from the start when he had a 5-set semi final against Djokovic I think at the AO 2012. He looked a much better player than the 2011 AO version that lost more tamely against Djokovic..

Since winning the US Open no he hasn't improved on the high level he already set in 2012. The improvement was there before and led to the slam, not vice versa (i.e. it was not won a slam so would now kick on and get better).

But I dont think you can win majors without winning minors HB, at least not consistently. I dont know if its because winning breeds winning, but other than Serena, the Slam winners and the guys/girls who lead the YTD title counts are the same people. Except Ferrer last year, but can beat any one ranked 6 & below.

CaledonianCraig wrote:As a matter of interest HM - what do you expect him to kick on to do?

Craig, I'm probably being a bit harsh but I'm a bit disappointed that he hasn't found some greater consistency yet.

I think last summer showed us how good Andy can be, but it feels to me that post USO he has dropped off a little.

I wanted to see him avoid a springtime slump. Although QF IW, W M and 3R MC is not exactly a slump, I do think he is capable of much better. Especially as he skipped Dubai to be ready for IW & M and hit the clay courts early for MC.

So I don't think his results have been bad, but I still don't think he is reaching his potential. And at this stage of his career, I think he should be doing that.

Maybe I'm expecting too much.

The question is what is Andy's potential given the field around him?

In my opinion lydian, Andy has the potential but lacks the supreme consistency levels needed to be a dominant force.

There are many variables that really make up the answer HM.

Without question his mentality and attitude on court have changed drastically and I think Lendl has to take the credit. He certainly looks to take the incentive in matches now and looks to play more aggressively at times rather than wait for him to dig himself out of a hole in a match. Physically as well he looks like a well oiled machine.

His serve hasn't kicked on. It is infuriating that such a flaw which is obvious to so many has not been improved upon. I would be the first to actually say that at this stage of his career it would be madness to tinker with it given that there are many other strengths to his game that compensate for that weakness. You find in most of his matches if he doesn't land his big 130mph+ serves in that he tends to mix up his pace in a bid to land more first serves in.

Variation. Now the jury is still out on this. I agree in a large part of his matches he tends to go for baseline shootout. That is his main strength and one which serves him well. To make up for his lack of stamina in the past he used to vary his shot selection. For me in some matches he does. Cillic in Miami I think was proof he can vary his play up. However, seeing his counterparts in Djokovic and Nadal still produce top results through this style of play isn't going to change his mind that the way he currently plays best serves his talent and results.

Movement. It is no secret that each year at the end of season he works hard. He has been piling on muscle. Clay. His nemesis. lydian made a brilliant point about his movement on Clay being too limited. He doesn't slide and well I wouldn't put him in the top 10 movers on Clay. Now he does run the risk of doing a Roddick who piled on the muscle and thus utilised a power based game. Murray just needs to be careful he doesn't pile too much muscle on which will slow his movement down. On Grass and HC he is lightning quick around the court. As time goes on Andy might find himself in a position where he has to lose weight in order to move more economically on court as he ages as Roddick did himself. For me if Andy is to succeed on Clay he has to play aggressive and hit more flat balls.

For me as an Andy fan I am very happy with where he is. He does have the Slam monkey off his back. It wouldn't bother me if his success was limited to Grass and HC. If he won 3-4 Slams without a FO I don't think many would be disappointed. Andy understands his limitations and I don't think he lose much sleep over the lack of success on Clay. If does want to succeed on Clay he needs to be more aggressive.

I can see where HM is coming from - last year was a bit of a mixed bag for Murray, as he had his biggest successes (W final, USO win, Olympics win) but outside of that only won one minor tournament and for the first time in 5 years didn't win a Masters Series title (he'd won 2 a year for the previous 4 years).

Now, it could be that some of this was to do with targetting specific events moer strongly, but he still loses more matches than he wins against both Nadal and Djokovic and so he'll always struggle to dominate the tour.

This year has started a bit like last, although at least with an MS event win - won in Brisbane, performed well in the AO, well enough in Miami, a bit poor at Indian Wells (although being hit off court by Del Potro can happen in any match) and a poor start to the clay court season.

I think though there is a risk of reading too much into the loss to Stan - yes, Andy played poorly, but also Stan played well and is a guy that has a history of causing Andy some problems - their having practiced together quite a lot means that Stan has a better understanding of Andy's game than most others, so the variations in pace and spin are less of an issue for him than for most of Andy's opponents. OK, Andy is not a great natural mover on clay, and that is something that will always limit his success on the surface, but when he's playing well he should be able to mainly reach QF/SF in the big events.

I think the 'problem' is best seen in comparison to Novak.

They are players with comparable styles, age, fitness and talent.

In the period since USO, Novak has gained 6,960 ranking points.

Andy has gained 3,990. Almost 3,000 fewer.

For a part of the year that is predominantly non-clay, I think this gap should be smaller.

HM Murdoch wrote:I think the 'problem' is best seen in comparison to Novak.

They are players with comparable styles, age, fitness and talent.

In the period since USO, Novak has gained 6,960 ranking points.

Andy has gained 3,990. Almost 3,000 fewer.

For a part of the year that is predominantly non-clay, I think this gap should be smaller.

I'd agree with you but I think Murray tanked the rest of the season after the USO win. He'd never admit it but he didn't play particularly well after the USO win (the Federer dismantling at Shanghai aside) until the start of the new season. I suppose that will be on Murray's gravestone: "Should have done better."

Still has time. Murray just needs to learn saving it for the Slams is not how you actually win a slam. Is it a coincidence that his breakthrough came during a winning period? The best players in history show it, they are all winning about five or more tournaments per slam. Nadal 53 tournament wins, eleven slams, Nole has about fourty wins, six slams, Sampras +-66 wins 14 slams.

Sure he wont end up classed with Borg and Sampras and Rafa, he definitely wont reach Feds mark. But he is a lot better than one or two slams. He was too good not to win a Slam, but is he focused enough to win one or two more

Indeed the "problem" is that we are comparing him to Novak and the 1984 Mac and the 1997 Sampras and the 2006 Federer

Seriously, non of us fans think he's a cert as a future No.1 - so he'll perform like a No.2 or 3

I have to laugh at the comment "should have done better" most on these boards think he's a distant 4th to his 3 rivals - so given that opinion he's actually over-achieved!!

He's obviously kicked on as he's now beaten Roger 3 out of the last 4, with two of those being prestigious wins

He's surely got more race points so far this year than he did last year or 2011 or 2010

Don't think he would have won Miami under those conditions previously, i.e. he's mentally tougher

Whilst I'd agree that he didn't kick on last year, I'm also not certain that there is evidence of Murray not playing "particularly well after the USO win" - when you consider that he lost a tight 3-setter to Nole in Shanghai and Roger played some of his best stuff to beat him at the O2

Think we can only discuss the impact, just before this years USO

I think he was always getting better and continues to improve, but it was never going to be at an accelerated rate - just because he won a Slam

Ban

I like the 'should have done better' comment - first Brit to win a slam since the Jurassic, multiple slam finals, Olympic champion, 9 Masters Series wins and 26 titles in total, ranked in the top 4 for all but a couple of weeks of the last 4 years and highest rank of #2 in a period including 2 all time greats and a third who is getting very close. Positive head to head against the consensus GOAT. Career winnings of only $27million.

Wish I was doing as poorly...

To clarify, I don't think he "should have done better" (one major is fine for me, but I'd love a Wimbledon win too ) but because he's so disliked by a lot of people, that phrase will always rear it's ugly head I think.

You Andy fans are a pragmatic bunch!

You get the Roger, Rafa and Novak fans on here getting annoyed that people run our players down.

But the Andy fans are on this thread saying "steady on, he's not actually quite as good as you're saying he is"!

HM Murdoch wrote:You Andy fans are a pragmatic bunch!

You get the Roger, Rafa and Novak fans on here getting annoyed that people run our players down.

But the Andy fans are on this thread saying "steady on, he's not actually quite as good as you're saying he is"!

Yeah, he's rubbish

best one slam winner ever?

HM - I think Murray fans have to be pragmatic because whilst he is phenomenally gifted, he is yet to display the minnow slaying consistency that Novak has shown, and I'm not sure he ever will.

Also, whilst he is right up there on hard and grass he is unlikely to ever be up there on clay. Lets face it, he's very unlikely to pick up the required points on clay to challenge for no.1.

Aside from MC he's had a good year, winning Brisbane then being outlasted by Novak after an incredibly tight 2 and a half sets in Melbourne, the a QF and W in the two masters events.

I think he'll go on to win a few more slams, but he'll never get higher than two in the world unless they abolish the clay season. So I DO think he is 'that' good but only for two thirds of the season.

I'm going to be controversial and just come straight out to say I think he had the talent inside him to have done a lot better than he has done so far - as good as he's done notwithstanding.

Basically I believe he went down the wrong route at around 20/21 in deciding to become a muscleman. Sure, he had to toughen up but its gone too far and its made his game narrow significantly from where it started.

This is the guy who was beating top 10ers regularly before he was out of his teens. He had guile and variety, a kind of stronger Santoro. He could move people all over the place and was regularly beating Federer without the need for huge muscles. People hated playing his quirky style of play.

However, he let the losses to Nadal, who he's always looked up to, change his thinking too much. (besides USO'08 of course). He watched Nadal and thought 'I need to be like that'. In embracing the huge body change needed he's focused on physical development at the expense of technical and tactical development of the game he had.

He could have just said, 'right, forget Nadal he's just a bad match-up and he's insanely fit, why waste time trying to catch that up when I'm having good results against Roger and Novak by using my variety to my advantage...I can perhaps beat Nadal by using even more variety, to be bold and aggressive, move him around, make life unpleasant on the court'.

But instead, he went down the counterpunching ralley route...where more and more muscle was required to live with Djokovic and Nadal at their game. In short, he embraced their game not his own inherent one.

Ok, he's done well enough but he's not playing on the strengths of variety and guile he has inside. Andy is one of the only pro's out there who is capable of changing his FH grip mid-shot from SW to Western to SW. He can play all the shots, with all the variety and has good hands. Instead, he's chosen to pummel and respond to shots at the back using lesser and lesser variance as the years go by.

Does anyone remember Rafter completely bamboozling Muster at RG on his favourite clay when Thomas was in prime? He pulled Muster all over the place with short angles, short shots pulling Muster in, and attacked the net often. Muster completely lost it and got so annoyed he wanted to punch Pat. This is also Andy's inherent game...the one he learnt and is capable of. But he strategically discarded it. Embracing the variety would have made him much more aggressive, much sooner...it would have been harder to start with but the long-run benefits could have been huge at the slams. The more aggressive approach is risky but points are won quicker meaning less muscle is needed to endure 4-5 hours with Nadal and Djokovic.

Maybe in time he will embrace more variety but I think its too later now and Lendl wasn't an allcourt player himself either. In some respects its shame he couldn't get on with Gilbert. I actually think Gilbert saw the game Murray had back then and wanted him to embrace it - remember Gilbert also liked to bamboozle guys by mixing it up, as I'm also saying here. However, Andy probably rebelled against that approach and instead wanted to go down the ralley route.

So for me, its a case of opportunity missed in some respects to have been a very different sort of player. I'm sure he'll still be successful but I wonder what price he paid for focusing on a type of game that's not really quite him truth be told, and a type of game he's got to constantly physically invest in.

Figure this....up to early 2009 when he was 21 and I feel still playing his "old game" (the new game/approach hadnt quite took over yet) - he was 6-2 up against Federer. Yes 6-2!
Then since that summer he's gone 7-5 down - from a time when Federer has got older and older. Federer loves feeding off even pace and that's what Murray plays more of now. The variety used to really get to Federer, and that's saying something.

Also, don't forget - he got up to #2 rank as early in summer 2009...then got overtook again, only recently getting back there (perhaps arguably through Nadal not being around).
Again, I think choosing a less variance game with focus on outlasting rallying has set him back.

Viva la difference Andy!

lydian. I don't believe he's copied Nadal. Nadal reputably dislikes the gym and prefers on court practice. Murray is the opposite he appears to prefer the body building approach. He also appears to prefer practice to match play. What's with all the secret training with Lendl and avoiding tournament play in order to "prepare". He has a schedule similar to "old man" Federer. A case in point is his approach to the clay season. Wouldn't playing a couple of 250's be more use than yet more pretend tennis.

You're missing my point completely by saying that. The point is he embraced stamina-based physicality at the expense of his own more finely-tuned, highly variant game of mixing it up. He felt he needed to gain strength and fitness to live with guys like Nadal...not direct copy him per se but build a physical game nonetheless...and so discarded some of the skills he could have gone down a different route of developing further to become a very different type of player than predominates the tour. Sure, he's successful now...we're not saying that...but could he have been even more successful playing a different type of game that seemed to bamboozle everyone when he was still a teenager. He could have still got fitter/stronger, just not make it his modus operandi.

Or on the other hand lydian would he be slamless without supreme physical fitness? He sure needed all that fitness in the marathon US Open Final - without it? Who knows?

CAS wrote:best one slam winner ever?

Without question, but he will lose that title pretty soon.

I don't think he's underachieved per se, and it's important to see beyond 'just' the single slam win. His slam finals were mostly against inspired opponents (nobody was beating US'08 Fed, or AO'11 Novak), and his overall record's a good one. Like others, I'd say the big 'improvement' came at the start of 2012.

However, I fully agree with lydian's post. I miss witnessing Murray's guile, he used to be a far better tactician than he is now, even if his results have improved. He's simply not as fun to watch anymore. All power to him for his career blossoming as it has done, though.

That's a really interesting post Lydian.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with all of it, but it's a perspective I've not heard before. Most people back then were of the opinion he had to take a more aggressive court position and unleash more often, as opposed to continuing with the all out variety approach.

In fact I think he continued the approach you think he abandoned up until Lendl. Though you could still argue that the beefing up process affected his ability to mix it up as opposed to counter attack, and I suppose there is a difference between the two.

I'm of the opinion that he only really changed once Lendl came on board. Up until then he was still more reliant on a mix of pace and plenty of slice - although arguably not quite as much as 2009. I think he had to make the changes he has made to move forward. I don't believe a faster Santoro style would get the job done in the big matches. Yes he had that great record against Roger, but as Roger said at the time... He was winning the ones that mattered.

Before the Olympics he had still only beaten Rafa twice in slams out of all his big matches. Since beating Novak and Roger in the semis and final of the Olympics - big matches for him - has has played the other main contenders 3 times winning 2 of them. That's a step forward I personally don't believe he'd have taken without the Lendl inspired more aggressive court position and unleashing more often. He still uses variety, but admittedly nowhere near as much as back then.

I believe the changes were the right thing to do, although I must say I think your post is fascinating and thought provoking.

Lydian, that's a fantastic post and one I agree wholeheartedly with.

I've been skeptical of his muscle building approach too. He is now comfortably the most muscular of the top 4. Nadal has huge arms but his torso is surprisingly normal. Novak is lean and wiry. Roger is, dare I say it, maybe a touch on the squidgy side! I don't really see where the idea that muscle translates into success comes from.

I find Andy an intriguing character. He is one of the most emotionally complex players out there and I do wonder how much self image has come into play. Not in the sense of vanity but maybe in the sense of how he'd like to be viewed as a player. He consequently builds toward something he's not rather than build upon what he is?

He's always struck me as being somewhat in awe of Rafa. Andy is a huge boxing fan, so you can see why he would respect Rafa with his physical, tough, gladiatorial approach. Maybe he didn't want to be a skinny guy with a crafty game. Maybe he wanted to be a muscular hard-hitter?

This of course is all pure speculation, I might be miles off!

I disagree with Lydian, I don't think he canned the variety for fitness. I don't understand why variety and physical fitness have to be mutually exclusive. The same problem I have with why consistency and fitness has to be mutually exclusive to shotmaking. Craig makes a valid point in that it is unlikely Murray would have won the USO without his fitness and strength. Not only that he wouldn't have won the USO without his variety and change of pace. Novak was trying to go for the lines and to blast murray off the court in a windy and gusty day. Murray used floaters and slices to basically throw Novak's timing off and draw errors. At one point in the match he started to routinely hit slice and continental forehands at Novak to force Novak to hit up and out. If anything murray does use the slice a lot, I think he doesn't move up to net enough and can get a little passive in his court positioning but that was a problem he had from the outset. The FH and second serve are two important areas that just aren't as good as the other top 4 guys.

He still has the variety in his bag, and has added a better forehand and fitness. In fact if you watch the USO final he played that final very much using change of height, speed, and pace to draw errors from Djokovic on a very windy day. And the strategy worked. The dink and dunk style is a good variation but I don't think it is a roadmap to number 1 unless you are as fit as hell. If you use a lot of floaters, slice balls etc, you better be fit because you are going to do a lot of running till you draw that error.

On part of Lydian's criticism to be fair that I do agree with is that I think he can volley more. He gets caught behind the baseline too much when he counterpunches and doesn't get to the net quite enough although frankly I think he has the best volleys of any of the top 4 players. If you watch his matches against Novak, Novak finishes a lot more points in the forecourt and at the net and if he shanks a volley or gets passed it doesn't stop him from moving in at the first option. But with the improved forehand and a bit more aggressive court positioning he will open up more chances to move in and he should do it more. Doesn't mean he doesn't have it in the bag.

Silver wrote:....I miss witnessing Murray's guile, he used to be a far better tactician than he is now, even if his results have improved. He's simply not as fun to watch anymore. All power to him for his career blossoming as it has done, though.

Yes, I agree with that. Great that he's winning more, pity he's less pleasing to watch.

Calder106 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch. The problem is we are all missing Federer. He didn't even get to say anything when he dropped below Andy in the rankings. You know what I bet he didn't even know. But don't worry he will be back in a couple of weeks and we'll all have more to talk about. Maybe someone could ask him his opinion on the existence of MurrayV2?

HE, I salute you and bow for bringing some humor to the V2 forum.

On serious note to the thread, Murray doesn't look like he has stepped up indeed he himself is not worried about it much which is a disappointment.

What makes you think he is not worried about it ? Bit of a throwaway comment

Well he clearly gone silent again in the clay season again, that doesn't bode well if he one day have to become the world no.1, its not a throw away comment its bit like you have thrown away a comment.

Excellent post Lydian. Mirrors my own thoughts. I firmly believe that Murray has the talent to at least be Novak's equal but not playing him at his own game. I don't enjoy watching Murray as much now as in 2009 when I think he was playing his best tennis until suffering a real confidence knock when he lost to Roddick (by underestimating him) at Wimbledon.

I'm still hopeful that he might re-instate that x-factor into his game over the next year or so but I am concerned by the lack of matches. He just doesn't seem to be able to get in a real rhythm this year. How many good matches has he played - Federer at the Oz Open and that's probably it?

I agree Murray's gone down the Nadal route as he has always really admired him. The only point I disagree with is that Nadal is a bad match-up. His game actually fits Murray very well. Watch their first match at Oz in 2007 or the Abu Dhabi match in 2009. Nadal's game feeds Murray's strength. He can "djokovic" Rafa and also add his own variety. When Murray believes he can beat Rafa and plays his natural game, he beats Rafa more times than he loses (off clay).

IC. You didn't answer the question. You said 'indeed he himself is not worried about it which is disappointing' . That conflicts with what he actually says himself.

http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/203072.html

So why do you think he isn't worried about it ?