Andy Murray - has he kicked on?

First topic message reminder :

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!

kingraf wrote:Re muscle... Andy is not THAT big, he just wears those annoying (if you work out) spray on shirts. He is listed at 84kgs, Nadal is 85 kgs (being two inches shorter), Tsonga is listed at 200lbs (before you call him fat, he did appear nude for some mag). I dont think Andy is/was/will ever be this mountain of muscle I keep hearing about, seriously you'd think he was a rugby center in tennis gear the way some go on.

re Variety. They say you dont fix whats not broken, and simply put his variety game doesnt fit the 'not broken' description. Its all good and well trying to bamboozle opponents, but that was leading to the odd upset here and there, not to mention that it was a little hit and miss against the big boys. The Andy that trains every match into a track meet has made three straight finals. Hows this even debatable?

There is no way on gods earth that 6'3 muscled out Murray weighs 84 kgs. His legs alone these days probably weigh over half of that. Those listings were created years ago when he had a completely different body shape, he's probably more like 90 kgs.

I read this: Murray's close friend Jamie Baker (British No.2) also acknowledged the benefits of sharing winter training facilities in Florida each year, and the improvement it brings to his performances. "We train differently but if we went up against each other he'd probably beat me in everything," Baker said last week. "Look at him, he's like a tank. The difference is that he has had six or seven years of a regular diet of that volume of training [6000 calories per day, lots of protein shakes]. When he first started working with Jez and Matt he was still training hard, so he's got to a point now where he can cope with anything that's thrown at him.". The built like a tank comment comes from Baker who weighs 81 kg, so we're supposed to believe 3-4 inch taller much more heavily muscled Murray is only 3 kg heavier? Yeah right.

The point here without the ensuing rugby player hyperbole (although his trainer Jez Green has said of him "He is also prodigiously strong, with the capability close to that of a rugby player in the gym even though he is a tennis player and cannot be that bulky) is that Murray has focused so much attention on physical development that its turned him into a grinder with lessened options. 3 straight finals yes but without Nadal in the field and hurricane winds in New York that destroyed Berdych and Djokovic - after all post USO Djokovic has had his number, 3 straight wins and counting on hard so I see the US result with skepticism.

The problem, and my assertion, is that Andy doesn't have the variety he used to have so he's restricted on Plan B options when things aren't going well. We saw vs Ferrer the lack of variety he has in his overly-muscled-down game now. Given Djokovic now plays much more of an all court game than Andy and is fitter and mentally stronger, plus Nadal is back on tour lets see if Murray makes the next 3 slam finals before you claim he doesn't need to fix anything and everything is tickety-boo.

This is 2013 Andy

www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Andy+Murray+2013+Australian+Open+Previews+izLz8B25A-rl.jpg

paddypowerblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/andymurrayuse.jpg?w=600&h=423

this is 2009 Murray

www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Australian+Open+2009+Previews+1vNbnGwkf8ol.jpg

If you can find ten kilos there, more power to you.

An illustration of the spray on effect.
Andy in tennis gear

www.rickey.org/andy-murray-defeats-robin-haase-in-australian-open-2013-round-one/

Andy in practise/casual gear.

m.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/tennis/tennis-andy-murray-tells-dan-evans-to-work-harder-1-2898112

www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/tennis/
tennis-andy-murray-tells-dan-evans-to-work-
harder-1-2898112

His 84kg entry on ATP site has always been the same.

I presume this 84kg Murray in 2007...


...is the same as this 84kg Murray in 2013?

Looks about the same to me except that murray is flexing in on picture. If I suck my stomach in I look skinny, if I push it in I look fat. What does that prove, he actually looks really freaking ripped in both pictures. Why exactly is this type of body damaging to murray the tennis player? When exactly did fitness and a ripped physique become bad for a tennis player?

in 2007 he was listed at 79 kilograms. Five kilograms is a lot of muscle to gain Lydian. Most athletes dont gain that in their careers, especially of they are playing year round. Heres a sub-90kg 6'3 David Haye.
www.boxnews.com.ua/en/news/3896/2007-12-30/Haye-Maccarinelli-is-Tailor-Made-For-Me

Over 90kgs puts Andy in as a heavyweight, or large cruiserweight, I dont buy that.

I think he's probably more than 84 kg. he does look like a tank. As Lydian said his legs are like tree trunks.

KR I think your estimation of body proportions needs some revising - you thought Rafa was about 5.10 tall. Anyone can see that he's at least 6 foot tall.

Im not convinced that Haye is 6.3 he definitely looks shorter

Right, this is a link to Murray walking in the ocean the same day he beat Ferrer in Mismi the other week, so no debate about whether it was years ago and no tensing going on either...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2302097/Andy-Murray-James-Bond-moment-emerges-sea-Miami-Masters-win.html

Is that really so muscly? Phenomenally fit yes. And I'm sure pretty strong. But is there anyway we can say that the bloke coming out if the water has overdone it or is too big for tennis? Not at all in my opinion.

that is not big.. This is why tennis fans get mocked in gyms. Guys coming in saying they want to get the "Andy Murray look" will get laughed right out (Nadal is saved by having a large left arm). Theres nothing wrong with saying Andy has gotten fitter, filled out etc. But a muscle man he is not. Verdasco is listed at 88kgs, was listed at 83 in 2011, so I assume it gets updates more regularly than every six years.
But for the sake of clarity, heres Andys AO stat line
www.australianopen.com/en_AU/players/overview/atpmc10.html

Sorry but like I say I disagree with lydian on certain things here. He still has the variety to his game and muscles have sweet Mrs Adams to do with that. He has attempted (muscles or no muscles it would have been the case I feel) to be more aggressive and more aggressive means less of the quirky shots which, lets face it are crowd pleasers and not match winners. Lydian you have been correct on aggression side whereas he should be following up on more of his shots to get into the net but lost his quirky shots and variety he has not.

Kingraf facts do not count on this website unless they fit in to the party line of fitness destroying tennis. Apparently tennis is the only sport that is being destroyed by athletes getting fitter and stronger.

David Haye is listed at 6'3, if he isnt than its not my fault.

I think it's your fault.

While I confess that I did once have a Wiki account, mainly to edit Jimi Hendrix's page. I concede that I forgot my password, and have long since abandoned the thought of giving misinformation, thus it cant be my fault

In a final nail on the coffin to this 90kg nonsense, even his website has him 84kgs

www.andymurray.com/about/

Much as I agree with the sentiment that Murray needs to re-add variety to his game there are some slightly odd comments being made on here. Murray hasn't lost his ability to play a more varied game because he is more muscular. Its clearly a mental choice to cut down on the more creative elements to focus on the pragmatic.

Indeed, the point about the US Open being windy wasn't that it put Berdych and Djoker off their games. It was that it forced Andy to adopt a more varied game. Berdych won the first set of the semi-final in a gale because his power enabled him to hit through it. However, after that, Murray gave a master-class in spins, touch and over-whelming ability. He suddenly made it appear calm at his end of the court. That's the genius that should be apparent in most of his matches and has definitely been lacking so far this year.

Its also a fallacy that Djokovic only lost because of the wind - he had been outclassed in his previous match against Murray at the Olympics and that match made it 4-4 from the start of 2011 (with two of Djokovic's wins being so close as to be considered match of the year contenders). When Murray was then 7/5 *5/4 30-0 in the Shanghai final I think most people would have been fairly clear where the balance of power between the two lay.

However, that one point (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKg9LF1sHjo) emphasises Murray's strange reluctance to go forwards - if he had followed his lob into the net as he would no doubt have done 5 years ago, he would have calmly put away Novak's hot-dog and probably closed out an easy win at 40-0. Instead, he was hanging around the baseline, Novak was able to get back into the rally and play an insane drop-shot winner. That match would have made the overall H2H 8-8. Instead, its given Novak back the edge in the match-up and he's now extended it to 11-7.

More generalisations Socal, who's talking about the death of tennis? Give it a rest. I presume 81 kg fellow tennis pro Baker saying Murray is built like a tank is to be thoroughly discounted then.

This fixation on specific weight is missing the point, why is it that despite Murrays huge strength/muscle gains his 2 major HC finals...AO, Miami...have seen his supposedly more 1 dimensional opponents make far more net approaches, played inside the baseline more, and hit with higher average ground stroke speed than him?

My point is that if perhaps he put as much effort into his mind and game variety as he's clearly done with his body then those points about the last 2 HC finals wouldn't apply?

Born Slippy - great post.

Completely agree about your USO comments and that bizarre choice not to follow up to the net in the shanghai match. Cost him the match ultimately.

This whole thing about Murray only won in New York because of the wind... I like to look at it in a slightly different way. The Berdych match was played in ridiculous conditions admittedly. The final less so. The first set and a half was very windy admittedly, but the wind died down from 15mph at the start to 8mph towards the end of the second set (I've watched the match a few times and remember the captions).

So whilst the start was tough, it was not that bad at the end. Murray had to go out and win a 5th set against the best player in the world in a match where both players had to cope with the same conditions. Murray adapted better and found a way to win, which should be to his enormous credit as it shows his adaptability and variety. Yet he gets accused of 'getting lucky' which I find odd.

Sorry I must have missed lydian's posts when he gushed over Andy's variety all those years ago. The sheer mass of opinion then was awash with opinion that Andy would never win a slam and that he was mentally weak. Criticisms that irked with Murray fans. Now a few years down the line we are supposed to believe Murray was a far better received, accepted and respected player all those years ago.

Now when Murray is in a streak where slam finals are the norm and has become a slam winner his career has gone awry. It seems to me people must just MUST always have a reason to have a pop at Andy. Whether it be because Murray was mentally weak and would never win a slam or because he is winning slams but not playing eye candy tennis.

Don't take my last post personally lydian I just feel you are picking fault (Murray's muscles) with something that isn't there.

Andy's physique has nothing to do with levels of variety. Several people agree he needs to get into the net more after hitting a great shot that has the returner sprawling to hit a return but instead he sits back on the baseline and allows the returner to recover into the rally when he could have been and should have been at the net to hit a winner to kill the rally stone dead. That is more a tactical fault and nothing to do with physique.

Interesting asymmetry in Andy's GS final results. He has made exactly six finals. In his first three, he won 0 sets. In his last three has won five.

Interesting discussion on the wind factor, I remember Murray getting schooled by Nadal in 2009 at Indian Wells in quite horrid conditions. To hear that the USO victory was in part because of the wind is an interesting thesis. Especially since I was told in no uncertain terms two days ago that such things have a very neglible effect on the result.

socal1976 wrote:Djokovic didn't win in MC because he out lasted Rafa in the rallies

I did not say "outlast", and I agree he is more aggressive than Rafa so will collect his share of winners. I just think that he was clearly more - and definitely not less - aggressive before 2011. But if you see it differently, happy to leave it at that for now as this is an Andy thread first and foremost.

Lol CC, surely you must know I've never "gushed" over Andy.
Obviously there's nothing to about, Andy's fine...here's to the next 3 slam finals.

lydian wrote:More generalisations Socal, who's talking about the death of tennis? Give it a rest. I presume 81 kg fellow tennis pro Baker saying Murray is built like a tank is to be thoroughly discounted then.

This fixation on specific weight is missing the point, why is it that despite Murrays huge strength/muscle gains his 2 major HC finals...AO, Miami...have seen his supposedly more 1 dimensional opponents make far more net approaches, played inside the baseline more, and hit with higher average ground stroke speed than him?

My point is that if perhaps he put as much effort into his mind and game variety as he's clearly done with his body then those points about the last 2 HC finals wouldn't apply?

Again back to my point about what I find to be logical inconsistencies in your argument. What does average groundstroke speed have to do with variety? In fact a player with a higher average ground stroke speed is hitting the ball hard from the baseline and giving his opponent more pace to work with more often. Slice backhands cut your average groundstroke speed, drop shots cut your average groundstroke speed, looping spinny shots cut your groundstroke speed. If Murray plays del po I will guarantee you that del po will have a higher groundstroke speed than murray, but that is because he has less variety and more.

Lydian - did you not see my link of Murray from a few weeks ago?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2302097/Andy-Murray-James-Bond-moment-emerges-sea-Miami-Masters-win.html

What huge muscles are you talking about? He lean and toned yes, and is not without muscle... But a tank???

Born Slippy wrote:Much as I agree with the sentiment that Murray needs to re-add variety to his game there are some slightly odd comments being made on here. Murray hasn't lost his ability to play a more varied game because he is more muscular. Its clearly a mental choice to cut down on the more creative elements to focus on the pragmatic.

Indeed, the point about the US Open being windy wasn't that it put Berdych and Djoker off their games. It was that it forced Andy to adopt a more varied game. Berdych won the first set of the semi-final in a gale because his power enabled him to hit through it. However, after that, Murray gave a master-class in spins, touch and over-whelming ability. He suddenly made it appear calm at his end of the court. That's the genius that should be apparent in most of his matches and has definitely been lacking so far this year.

Its also a fallacy that Djokovic only lost because of the wind - he had been outclassed in his previous match against Murray at the Olympics and that match made it 4-4 from the start of 2011 (with two of Djokovic's wins being so close as to be considered match of the year contenders). When Murray was then 7/5 *5/4 30-0 in the Shanghai final I think most people would have been fairly clear where the balance of power between the two lay.

However, that one point (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKg9LF1sHjo) emphasises Murray's strange reluctance to go forwards - if he had followed his lob into the net as he would no doubt have done 5 years ago, he would have calmly put away Novak's hot-dog and probably closed out an easy win at 40-0. Instead, he was hanging around the baseline, Novak was able to get back into the rally and play an insane drop-shot winner. That match would have made the overall H2H 8-8. Instead, its given Novak back the edge in the match-up and he's now extended it to 11-7.

Agree with this BS, Novak I think is a better player than murray but the margin between them is not that big. If anything Murray's victory against djoko had to do with murray selecting the right tactics to draw errors from Novak in those windy conditions and also Andy's incredible fitness. During many points in that match murray was slicing forehands from the middle of the court forcing Novak to hit out in uncomfortable conditions. Murray used the looping floaters and slice, ie variety to beat Novak's more aggressive play on a day that suited that type of play. Novak had more winners, more net approaches, and way more errors he was the aggressor but the conditions did not favor the aggressor, it favored the player who changed speeds and used his guile more effectively.

I agree with those that say murray needs to step into the court and get to net a bit more. But I find it amazing that the same people that claim all the gains in recent years have been in fitness on tour in general and with Djokovic in particular are now counseling murray to be more varied and work less in the gym and more on his shots. I mean if the argument is that technology and conditions have lessened the importance of technical ability and ball striking, then Murray would be a fool to not hit the gym religiously.

We hear the argument that Nadal, Djoko, and Murray after 5 years on tour moving into their mid twenties are no better at hitting a ball then when they were teenagers and that already at young ages they were finished products at ball striking. Then we are told that Murray should have focused more on his shots and less in the gym? If Djokovic is the same ball striker, possibly worse than 5 years ago and the best players today contrary to fact and reason are the same at hitting the ball as they were at 19 and the gains they have made in ensuing years has been inconsequential why should murray focus on fruitless activity of working on his shots?

Danny, I promise you that you wont find one person in a gym who thinks Andy is a tank. 606 is a weird alternative universe. But that is beside the main point. The main point is that a guy who is on three straight GS finals is a less assured/more nervous player than the won who couldnt buy a set in his previous finals

kingraf wrote:Danny, I promise you that you wont find one person in a gym who thinks Andy is a tank. 606 is a weird alternative universe. But that is beside the main point. The main point is that a guy who is on three straight GS finals is a less assured/more nervous player than the won who couldnt buy a set in his previous finals

Ding, ding, ding. A very weird alternative universe. Every single paid journalist and past legends talk up the current period and current stars if you listen to the posters here they are just lung merchants relying on technology with diminished technical ability. The game is in disarray and will lose fans despite seeing prize money sky rocket in recent years.

Commetators mention how Djoko's game has improved in a variety of areas and here the only thing you hear about is how fit he is and in fact he is no better at hitting a tennis ball today than he was at 19 or 20. In the real world people talk about how murray has improved and how he has the right approach now and on V2 you hear talk about how lendl and fitness have lead murray astray. The old 606 community in my mind seems to be stuck in 2007-08 myopia and old school tennis nostalgia.

Novak over the last 2 years or so has improved in a lot of areas. Yes, physically... But also the forehand, the serve, his volleys. His slice - which still needs work - is better than a year ago. Those are all technical improvements. Other aspects of his game have probably gone up a couple of percent too.

Similarly to Murray's situation since the start of last year, I could not disagree more about Novak not having made technical improvements in recent years. I actually find it a bizarre thing to say.

Danny_1982 wrote:Novak over the last 2 years or so has improved in a lot of areas. Yes, physically... But also the forehand, the serve, his volleys. His slice - which still needs work - is better than a year ago. Those are all technical improvements. Other aspects of his game have probably gone up a couple of percent too.

Similarly to Murray's situation since the start of last year, I could not disagree more about Novak not having made technical improvements in recent years. I actually find it a bizarre thing to say.

Precisely, Danny I mean apparently the world #1 lacks the basic aptitude for tennis. Because if you or I in our physical peak had the best coaching and played tennis every day for 5 years we would get better after said period at hitting a tennis ball. And as we have seen with other players on tour they are getting better and better from their teens and early twenties as they get into their mid twenties. Apparently Djokovic and murray contrary to logic and contrary to what we see in the development of other players are actually getting worse or staying the same at hitting a tennis ball and any and all the success they have is because Federer and Nadal have degraded or it is down to fitness. It makes no sense to me and frankly it is part of an agenda to portray the modern game in crisis and to push for changes in technology and conditions to bring back the serve and volley tennis of their youth.

I went back recently and watched the first set of Djoko and Tsonga final of 08 in AO, as well as Novak played you can not compare today's djoko the ball striker to that player. He made hardly any net approaches, and in that first set you could count the number of slice backhands he hit on one hand. Also a shot that he didn't have in 08 was the short heavy spinning cross court forehand that he uses so well today to pull opponents off the court.

Danny, I have come to the conclusion that this bias is a result of basically nostalgia for serve and volley and an attempt to big up the fedal heyday at the expense of the best players today.

kingraf wrote:Danny, I promise you that you wont find one person in a gym who thinks Andy is a tank.

No, just the British No.2 tennis player who trains with Murray - is he living in an alternative universe too? I guess you know better than Murray's friend and training partner.

socal1976 wrote:if you listen to the posters here they are just lung merchants relying on technology with diminished technical ability.

Loving the usual sensationalist hyperbole. I have never used those words or that inference, that's just a really lazy summary and thing to say. The actual nuance of the arguments put forward are ignored, your response is the embellishment of things unsaid and creation of strawmen. My issue is conditions, not the players.

socal1976 wrote:Commetators mention how Djoko's game has improved in a variety of areas and here the only thing you hear about is how fit he is and in fact he is no better at hitting a tennis ball today than he was at 19 or 20.

We're all commentators and opinions are cheap. You're entitled to your views, I'm entitled to mine. For example, I could state a view that other commentators have skepticism of Djokovic's meteoric rise given his coincidental use of the CVAC egg chamber through 2011 to boost his blood oxygen capacity - a device that boosts blood oxygen carrying capacity twice as much as EPO and WADA refuse to approve it. Just saying. Clearly that device has nothing to do with it, it's just his huge advancement in technique in every shot that's responsible for everything.

socal1976 wrote:The old 606 community in my mind seems to be stuck in 2007-08 myopia and old school tennis nostalgia.

Old school nostalgia? I train tomorrows kids for tennis...ironically that must be new school. But pardon me for speaking on a thread that questions Murray's advance. Clearly Djokovic is the 2nd coming, Murray is playing better than ever and with more variety from no increase in muscle/weight and conditions right now are just perfect for talent to shine through without the need for Herculean gym sessions and egg chambers.

There are no V2 players

socal1976 wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:Novak over the last 2 years or so has improved in a lot of areas. Yes, physically... But also the forehand, the serve, his volleys. His slice - which still needs work - is better than a year ago. Those are all technical improvements. Other aspects of his game have probably gone up a couple of percent too.

Similarly to Murray's situation since the start of last year, I could not disagree more about Novak not having made technical improvements in recent years. I actually find it a bizarre thing to say.

Precisely, Danny I mean apparently the world #1 lacks the basic aptitude for tennis.

That can happen, you know - Roddick and Hewitt, for example, are known throughout tennis-land as 'One-shot' and 'no-shot' respectively

Of course Djoko has improved. Is it leaps and bounds? No, Ive already said that the closer you get to the top, the less, logically, your increments of improvements can become. I mean you cant keep improving by ten percent every year, if your ranked number 3. Even Nadal has improved, despite missing a great deal of major events in the last five years (two WTF, two Slams, 6-9 MS100). If 2012 Djokovic played 2007 Nadal, there would be bloodshed, sadly not in Nadals favour. Nadal was 21-22 at the height of the Fedal rivalry, he was not peaking by any stretch.

Look Lydian, we don't see eye to eye, but I am not a neophyte to the game either. I have played and watched tennis, played in tournaments albeit in my youth, and have been coached by some damn fine coaches and still take lessons regularly. Maybe I use hyperbole a bit and sarcasm but when I listen to your arguments as much detailed knowledge as you have about tennis I don't see the logic in them. His shots are better, even you state he is more consistent, consistentcy comes from better technique that is more easily repeatable.

PS does he travel around the world with his egg chamber? For a guy who spends 11 months a year in a hotel room and a plane he must have a team of technicians traveling around and installing and uninstalling his mobile egg chamber. Again I know it is more logical to believe that Djokovic after 5 years in his prime, of hitting tennis balls everyday, and getting the best coaching is no better at hitting a tennis ball and instead to credit it to the his magical egg chamber that he carries along in his carry on luggage.

By the way the egg chamber is not illegal and has not been proscribed, it involves air pressure and oxygen, is oxygen now a controlled substance?

If you want to put forward the opinion that Novak is no better at tennis and it is all the egg chamber go ahead, but I think the majority of objective people can make up their own mind as to whose opinion is based in fact and whose opinion has no support in the real world.

Lydian - have you looked at the pictures of Murray's physique in the link I posted?

Look at those images from a few weeks ago and, disregarding anyone else's opinion, tell me if you think those images of Murray show a man who is too muscular?

kingraf wrote:Of course Djoko has improved. Is it leaps and bounds? No, Ive already said that the closer you get to the top, the less, logically, your increments of improvements can become. I mean you cant keep improving by ten percent every year, if your ranked number 3. Even Nadal has improved, despite missing a great deal of major events in the last five years (two WTF, two Slams, 6-9 MS100). If 2012 Djokovic played 2007 Nadal, there would be bloodshed, sadly not in Nadals favour. Nadal was 21-22 at the height of the Fedal rivalry, he was not peaking by any stretch.

Agree wholeheartedly, margins at the very top are small so improvements are going to small as well, but not insignificant. The idea being bandied about in V2 bizarre world is that djokovic, murray, and Nadal are no better at hitting a tennis balls since they were about 19 despite playing tennis everyday for years and having the best coaching. I made the specific point that Nadal in his early days could not hit 120 on his first serve, that in recent years he can even get the serve up to 130. That improvement was deemed to be irrelevant by he V2 brain trust one commentator claimed that Murray and Nadal adding MPH to their first serve was in fact a negative. In V2 bizarre world 10-12 miles an hour is deemed irrelevant and by some even to be a negative. What? I would take a dozen kicks to the jimmy in exchange for 10 or 12 miles more on my first serve.

Lydian- Andy may be a tank stamina-wise, ability-wise, or even mentally. But if you gonna tell me I cant tell if Andy is a tank in terms of musculature, then you obviously havent seen tanks. You obviously dont need to personally know someone to know they are a tank. I mean, Witaly Klitschko is obviously a tank. Have I met him? No, didnt need to. Stephen Hawking is not a tank. Did I meet him? No. Boxer Kenneth Norton was a tank. Did I meet him? No, I can see it because I have got eyes!! If Baker was a personal trainer, I might take cogniscance of what he is saying, but alas. I'm 5'11 185 lbs, box three nights a week. NEVER have I been called tank by anyone who lives in a universe with rugby players and NFL footballers. Federer is 85kg with canons for calf muscles, I dont hear you calling him a tank. The only top 10 players I think can be called tanks (by pretty low standards) are Tsonga and at a stretch Berdych.

A few quotes from Andy from January in Australia.

"Most of the weight that I put on is in my legs, but the T-shirt I'm wearing is tighter. It's not that I'm any bigger in my upper body. It's just because of the tightness of the T-shirt. Maybe it appears that way."

"Rafa was the first one to have that physique that looked like a true world-class athlete across any sport. Tennis players are always in good shape, but I think he looked like he could do any sport."

"The game has changed for sure physically. It's much more demanding and I've adapted my preparation and training. Reducing the amount of tournaments I play and spending more time getting myself ready for events is the best way to prepare. Still not everybody does that, but I believe that's the best way to go about it, spending more time in the gym in the off-season."

Danny, I've seen plenty of photos of Murray. It seems that the guy works like a Trojan on his fitness (have you read Jez Green's article about his training?) and yet we're to believe there have been no significant gains plus we're also to discount Baker who actually trains with Murray and calls him a tank. Why would 81kg 6'0 tall Baker call Murray a tank? Huge stamina is not referred to as being a tank...he's clearly referring to physique, and the reference was regarding gym work anyway.

Look, its kind of besides the point. My overall point - in response to the OP - is that Murray appears to becoming more and more of a grinder. Someone stated how he's now powering people off court with his gains. I countered that with the fact that known grinder Ferrer was hitting bigger than him in Miami and going to net more (variety). In return, exasperatingly Socal then asks why I bring up average speeds of hitting so obviously he doesn't read a word of what I write!

However Socal, don't let that stop you not following my logic. Most people tend to believe Djokovic already had the game in 2008 to be a multislam champion but not the mental or physical strength to back it up. I'm not going to sit here and say he's made zero technique gains but that wasn't my point. I said the MAJORITY of his gains appear to be mental and physical. Fine, disagree with me but read what I say fully before casting sarcastic and nostalgia finger pointing judgements at me. Incidentally, I agree with JHM that it seems pretty ironic that you say "I mean apparently the world #1 lacks the basic aptitude for tennis" when you're more than happy to label Hewitt, a 2 time slam former #1, as leading the "rollover generation". You accuse me of nostalgia when it could equally be said you're as guilty of reverse-nostalgia, i.e. only the latest is the greatest, no?

Re: CVAC devices, who knows...players aren't stuck in hotel rooms for months at a time, they have weeks off and access to private jets, etc. Plus they dont need to be chained to the device night and day, apparently its EPO-like blood boosting and recovery quickening properties can be achieved in only 2 x 20 mins sessions per week. Where there's a will to use it I'm sure there's a way. But hey...just saying

I don't mean to go down this line of discussion but frankly your constant sarcasm, misrepresentation and strawmen building when you havent even read what I write half the time is somewhat annoying.

I did call the Spray on shirt!
Andy didnt really put a time line on when this weight gain happened. And with his very own website, the AO2013 website, and the ATP website putting him at 84kg (although his own sight does add a complete 0.1kg) I have to assume he is regarding his original gains.

Rafa does look very fit, but he obviously doesnt spend a lot of time in the gym (the scary asymmetry is an immediate giveaway). He went on record to say very early in his career he doesnt gym. A lot of people thought that was a lie, but if your uncle makes you use second-rate balls, courts, and racquets, then I dont think him banning you from the gym is a jump. Even now he doesnt seem to do that much in the gym (nor much cardio, due to the foot). This is my roundabout way of saying its remarkable Nadal arrived on the scene that thick.

Lydian - Ferrer wasn't hitting bigger than him. Ferrer plays the same shot over and over again. Murray plays slice a lot of the time on the backhand side. Therefore Ferrer's average shot speed will be higher as he virtually never slices. Murray hits way harder than Ferrer. Come on, everyone knows that.

As for what Baker said, I'm a tank compared to Jamie Baker! I have posted a link showing Murrays physique a few weeks ago because I want to know if you will still believe that Murray is too muscly. If you really do believe that, I don't know why you're so reticent to look at the evidence that shows how he looks right now.

In case you're wondering, the evidence shows a very fit and lean athlete with some decent muscle... But not in any way enough for it to be described as damaging to his ability to play any style of tennis. Again, you're welcome to look and feed back your comments, but something tells me you won't.

Lydian, I have never argued that fitness, maturity and belief didn't play a role in Novak's development. We can argue about the percentages one way or the other but it seems you have backtracked a bit on the technical improvement in past posts, and I did read your posts you stated that Novak has weaker competition and has not significantly improved technically, and that the most important gains have been in fitness. Your last post is the first time that you have conceded any material technical improvements between Djoko 2008 and 2013. Instead in pasts posts you stated that he hadn't improved technically just improved his tactics and became more consistent, which I argue being more consistent hitting a shot is a technical improvement.

By the way your contention on the egg chamber and secret flights on private jets to go in the chamber is really quite silly. WADA and no doping agency has banned or made illegal the egg chamber. What the hell does the world anti-doping agency have to say on oxygen and air pressure. Last time I checked air pressure and oxygenated air was not a controlled substance. And it isn't illegal or proscribed so what?

Some of my other arguments are not directed at you, although I find it amusing that Nadal improves his serve by over 10-12 miles an hour and some posters (not you) claim this is irrelevant or actually hurt Nadal's game. Clear case of 606v2 bizarre world thinking.

Regarding Djokovic, our discussion centres around consistency, fitness and mental strength. I say he's essentially been the same ball striker since 07/08, you say he's more consistent now so that means he's a better ball striker. I don't agree, it's semantics but I don't see it the same. If Djokovic can hit 7/10 FHs down the line of a certain quality in 2008 and then 9/10 of the same quality in 2011 it doesn't mean the extra 2 shots are better, it doesn't mean the 9 overall are any better...they're the same shot, he's just hitting the same ones abit more often. For me that speaks to mental strength gains, not technical gains.-Lydian on April 25 on another thread

I provide this quote because you accuse me of creating a straw man, you argued with me vociferously when I said Novak was a better ball striker and now you are saying you won't argue that he has improved but the MAJORITY OF improvement is physical. I didn't create a straw man, and I did read your post.

For example he has added shots like the cross court short angled forehand that really did not have at all back in 08 for one thing.

Facts of the matter (as I see it) is that Novak an Andy have improved in the last couple of years. To claim that Novak could go on a run like he did in 2011 and claim he hadn't improved any aspects of his game from say 2008 is quite frankly mind-boggling. Yes Djoko is fitter but that doesn't account for how he went on an immense winning streak in that year. As for Andy losing his variety due to piling on the muscles - well sorry but I disagree. Andy still has the variety but has been tending to play a more aggressive brand of tennis lately and quite clearly that means quirky shots will be played less frequently ie drop shots to make way for the aggressive shots. That is by choice not because he has muscles.

socal1976 wrote:Maybe I use hyperbole a bit

...and you can do understatements too

I fail to see how increased fitness hurt Andy.

It may be true that he is relying too much on defending, but it is nothing new. "Quirky" Andy of old was also relying on defending too much. It is not his fitness that made him into a defensive player; it is his mindset that seems to lead him that way.

If anything, he became more aggressive last year. Yes, one can fault him for maybe still not being aggressive enough, and certainly for taking too long to try to become more aggressive, but it is not like we used to have an aggressive Andy who turned into a defensive fitness freak.

Andy used to be a defensive quirky counterpuncher; that was just not a good place to be if he wanted to start winning slams. As kingraf said in one of his posts, "if it is not broke, do not fix it" did not apply because his quirky game was never going to get him the results (just like quirky game never does).

summerblues wrote:I fail to see how increased fitness hurt Andy.

It may be true that he is relying too much on defending, but it is nothing new. "Quirky" Andy of old was also relying on defending too much. It is not his fitness that made him into a defensive player; it is his mindset that seems to lead him that way.

If anything, he became more aggressive last year. Yes, one can fault him for maybe still not being aggressive enough, and certainly for taking too long to try to become more aggressive, but it is not like we used to have an aggressive Andy who turned into a defensive fitness freak.

Andy used to be a defensive quirky counterpuncher; that was just not a good place to be if he wanted to start winning slams. As kingraf said in one of his posts, "if it is not broke, do not fix it" did not apply because his quirky game was never going to get him the results (just like quirky game never does).

Exactly we heard for years how Andy needed to hit out more with his forehand and not get trapped behind the baseline. I still think murray cedes court positioning too much and could get to the net more. But the idea that after murray wins a gold medal beating fed on grass and a slam beating Djoko on hardcourt that some how the old variety based murray was a better player is really not supported by any results or facts. The man still has all the various shots but he is looking to finish points faster with the forehand.

I mean I just don't understand when fitness and strength became dirty words for tennis players.

socal1976 wrote:Exactly we heard for years how Andy needed to hit out more with his forehand and not get trapped behind the baseline.

When Nole and Andy first appeared on the scene I used to prefer Andy to Nole. I still remember a discussion with a friend of mine back then who said he preferred Nole because "Andy was just pushing the ball back all the time" while Nole was more aggressive. I thought then (and still do) that my friend was exaggerating the difference between the two somewhat but there is no doubt that Andy has always been more defensive minded. If anything, they are now closer than they used to be. Andy is a bit more aggressive and I would also say (though I know you disagree) that Nole is less aggressive than back then.