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!

its crazy to suggest Djokovic hasn't improved technically, from 08 he has probably practiced 2/3 hours a day (discounting holidays, matches and rest days after tournaments) so 5 years of all that playing, his shots are exactly the same? Its madness

Murray has improved technically, I was watching his wimbledon 08 match against Nadal and I couldn't believe how different his forehand looked. Their improvements are gradual over the years, you can only truly notice them when you look back. Novaks forehand in the US Open 07 looks different to me than it does today, as does Nadal's from 05-07 to now. If they don't get better after playing all the tennis they play week in and week out why do they practice at all?

summerblues wrote:

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.

In some respects he is more aggressive I watched the first set of the AO 08 and I noticed that Novak rarely if ever moved into the forecourt, now he approaches on average on a hardcourt about 8-12 times a set. I think Novak did dial it back a bit in terms of going for the first serve and also a little bit on the return. It may actually now that I think about his game be a fair assessment because Novak is so confident in carving his opponent up and getting him chasing with his change of direction the longer and longer the points go. So in some areas ie going to the forecourt but that might not make up for the fact that he dialed back his first serve for a higher percentage after all the double fault woes of 09 and 2010.

CAS wrote:its crazy to suggest Djokovic hasn't improved technically, from 08 he has probably practiced 2/3 hours a day (discounting holidays, matches and rest days after tournaments) so 5 years of all that playing, his shots are exactly the same? Its madness

Murray has improved technically, I was watching his wimbledon 08 match against Nadal and I couldn't believe how different his forehand looked. Their improvements are gradual over the years, you can only truly notice them when you look back. Novaks forehand in the US Open 07 looks different to me than it does today, as does Nadal's from 05-07 to now. If they don't get better after playing all the tennis they play week in and week out why do they practice at all?

Exactly, CAS you touched on the logically inconsistency I see in Lydian and many of the people who claim that murray, djoko, and Nadal were just as good in 08 as now in terms of ball striking. Especially since they now argue that murray should have spent more time working on his shots and less time in the gym. If all the gains among the top players have been mainly in fitness and they are no better in shotmaking after 5 years of playing all day, with the best coaching, going into their athletic primes how is it possible that these talents become worse or no better at hitting a tennis ball? Then simultaneously they argue that with all the gains being in fitness among the top guys that murray should forego the fitness training and work on his shots. I mean apparently working on your ball striking has been fruitless for the top guys and all the gains have been in fitness and therefore murray should spend less time in the gym and more time on the court? Why would he do that if all the top guys are basically the same at hitting a tennis ball as 5 years ago and regardless of how much they have worked they are no better than they were at age 19 or 20?

Yes socal so it looks like we are in agreement on Nole. I aso agree with you about the more frequent forecourt approaches - no question Nole improved his volleys significantly.

summerblues wrote:Yes socal so it looks like we are in agreement on Nole. I aso agree with you about the more frequent forecourt approaches - no question Nole improved his volleys significantly.

Yes summerblues, but I do think he did dial it back a bit on the first serve realizing that he didn't need to become the second coming of Sampras with the forehand, backhand, and speed that he possessed. In a way he is still a principally aggressive player but he plays more controlled and more varied today with bigger margin on the forehand.

There is a collective point about Andy and Novak, and its a relative one. Out of the gains they have made since 2008 what is the % breakdown between technical, physical and mental? My point throughout this - which is where this all started - is that Novak and Andy have probably >90% developed further physically and mentally. The technical gains will be there but they're nowhere near as big as the other gains. We have to remember we're talking relativities here, both are great players achieving much from 18-19 onwards.

Socal, we'll have to disagree over how much the % is for technical gains. Fair enough, but you can't deny the majority of his development since 2008 hasn't been technique, and that's fair enough because he quite frankly needed it. But this thread is about Andy not Djokovic - let's give Djokovic a rest for a while.

Re Andy, my point is that it appears to me in 2013 something isn't quite clicking since AO and I was just wondering whether he's putting too much focus on e physical side, not the game plans and variety which we know he has. As I said, many ther players than him are now making more net approaches than him. The ATP site itself discusses how he out-ground Ferrer in Miami with various stats, which I replicated here.

Personally, I think coming to the net/staying back is a tactical improvement rather than technical, for Murray. To say it is technical is to suggest that Murray couldnt play one or the other.

To say Murray's "problems" are tactical is to suggest that his slices, nets etc. have receded in quality (technique), when the case is that Murray doesnt want to slice/come to the net (Tactical).

In contrast Djokovic really couldnt volley (well, not well) 2008, so his is a technical improvement which gave him the option of a different tactic. Same with Nadal and the slice.

socal1976 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

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.

In some respects he is more aggressive I watched the first set of the AO 08 and I noticed that Novak rarely if ever moved into the forecourt, now he approaches on average on a hardcourt about 8-12 times a set. I think Novak did dial it back a bit in terms of going for the first serve and also a little bit on the return. It may actually now that I think about his game be a fair assessment because Novak is so confident in carving his opponent up and getting him chasing with his change of direction the longer and longer the points go. So in some areas ie going to the forecourt but that might not make up for the fact that he dialed back his first serve for a higher percentage after all the double fault woes of 09 and 2010.

I know you won't agree, but the improvements he made from 2010 to 2011 were mainly physical and mental and not technical improvements.
He went from retirements to outlasting nadal!
For me he is definitely less aggressive than he was 07-08 for example, as he didn't rely on outlasting opponents and went for more winners and took more risks. For instance against nadal he sometimes tried to pull the trigger too early as he couldn't afford to get into a marathon match everytime vs rafa but when he became, as you say, djoko 2.0 he didn't need to take as many risks and could rally more with nadal.

Luvsports, if you are looking for improvement in Djokovic between 2010 and 2011 without question by far the biggest improvement bar none is in his serve. He had without question the worst serve in the top ten in 2009 and and 2010 and on this thread I provided numbers proving it. The martin serve experiment gave him a lengthy case of the Sharapova's. Djokovic's fitness I would rate as second most important improvement, he didn't huff and puff in every match some matches like Madrid of 09 he played 4 hours with Nadal and held up pretty well. But in that period every single service game seemed to be a struggle.

In fact if you want to say between 2010 and #3 Novak and 2011 and number 1 Novak which is the biggest change the serve. Serve improvement is a technical improvement.

Now take this into consideration Luvsports, if Novak's main improvement was in fitness and that now he could last in the rallies with Nadal, and that confidence and fitness played the key role answer one key question for me. Why did Novak Djokovic go from having a career losing record against top 10 players in 2010 he was in the to high 40s by 2010, to know being among he top 7 or 8 players in history with wins against the top 10? Your theory may prove why he played Nadal better, but why then do we see his results sky rocket against the rest of the tour to the point that he hasn't lost to non-top 4 opponent in a slam in nearly 3 years?

His results didn't just improve against Nadal because he could now out last him, his results improved against the whole tour and all the top 10 players. And this record improvement in wins against the top ten came principally in 3 set matches, most of these wins involved a straight set conquest by Novak. I mean in 2011 most of the other guys on tour struggled to even win sets off of him. Are we to assume that in two set matches the deciding factor was Novak's fitness?

Examine the serve numbes vis a vis 2010 and 2011 and the difference is dramatic, incredibly dramatic.

lydian wrote:There is a collective point about Andy and Novak, and its a relative one. Out of the gains they have made since 2008 what is the % breakdown between technical, physical and mental? My point throughout this - which is where this all started - is that Novak and Andy have probably >90% developed further physically and mentally. The technical gains will be there but they're nowhere near as big as the other gains. We have to remember we're talking relativities here, both are great players achieving much from 18-19 onwards.

Socal, we'll have to disagree over how much the % is for technical gains. Fair enough, but you can't deny the majority of his development since 2008 hasn't been technique, and that's fair enough because he quite frankly needed it. But this thread is about Andy not Djokovic - let's give Djokovic a rest for a while.

Re Andy, my point is that it appears to me in 2013 something isn't quite clicking since AO and I was just wondering whether he's putting too much focus on e physical side, not the game plans and variety which we know he has. As I said, many ther players than him are now making more net approaches than him. The ATP site itself discusses how he out-ground Ferrer in Miami with various stats, which I replicated here.

Fair enough, I only brought up Novak because I felt these arguments were not consistent logically lets leave it as we disagree about what percentage is what at least now it seems we have clarified that you do believe he is better at hitting a tennis ball now then he was in 08.

As in regards to Andy I think Murray had a problem prior his relationship with lendl in that he needed to have a simpler and more direct route to success and in order to get there he needed a better forehand. The forehand is better although like most forehands it can go off the boil still at times. It is easier and safer to hit the short forehand for a winner then to try to run in prematurely with the conditions and technology of the modern tour. Therefore Murray made the change I believe in tactics that would facilitate more success. I do think he still should and could get to the net more where in my mind he is the best volleyer of all the top 4, Federer included. That is a valid criticism. But I think Murray in improving his forehand in away is still trying to incorporate a new style of play with the variety and forecourt play, maybe with this emphasis on forehand and fitness he has tilted the pendulum too much to the other side.

kingraf wrote:In contrast Djokovic really couldnt volley (well, not well) 2008, so his is a technical improvement which gave him the option of a different tactic. Same with Nadal and the slice.

Absolutely, remember he brought in woodforde the double's player to help him in that regard, started to play some doubles matches on the side and has made a very significant technical improvement in that area. He isn't LLodra or stepanek now and will never be the best volleyer on tour but he is no a competent and pretty frequent volleyer by modern standards. His backhand volley in particular was quite awful in 07/08.

People sometimes misinterprete technical improvements with tactical. Once you have the option of playing different shots on the same ball, you're decision is a tactical one, nothing to do with your technique. Thus deciding to grind when you're capable of approaching and finishing at the net is a tactical decision.

On the flipside, Improving a shot to the point whereby it is reliable is a technical affair. As is the case with Djokovic's volleys, or Fed's chronic inability to match up with Nadals BH. The two are intrinsically linked, but there is definite difference.
In essence:
technical- Improving a shot,
tactical- Being able to make decisions with respect to you're arsenal. Thus Murray not approaching/slicing is not a technical issue (he can play these shots adequately), but rather a tactical one (not the most likely way to win a point).

socal- The interesting thing about Djoko is that he almost wills himself to these improvements. In a very stubborn manner, even when he couldn't volley he was still coming forward, almost learning on the job, if you know what I mean. Very fearless, even if he got passed eight times out ten, and would probably thank anything to the backhand, he still went forward.

Agree fully with the last post kingraf, the thing that first attracted me to djokovic as a player was that he was not one of these guys that stood pat, or was frightened of pushing his limitations and his capabilities. Early on he got little joy from his forecourt play but it didn't stop him. Even with his disastrous serve experiment that we saw in 09 and 2010, how many players at world #3 would even have the guts to radically alter a service motion that was already very good while in mid career. That turned out to be a disaster but other changes and refinements are now paying off. In short, his constant desire to get better and to not be scared of incorporating changes is the principal reason he is where he is.

If you look at his contemporaries people like Berdych, Tsonga, and Gasquet they are basically the same players they were many years ago. Yes these three have improved as well, but have not improved to the extent that djokovic has. If you look at 06 when all these guys broke on tour the tour along with Murray, it wasn't like Djokovic was clearly the best of the bunch. But he has been the one clearly who has improved the most. And now look at the gap he has opened up between his level of accomplishment and the rest of that rather golden group of contemporaries.

The best of the bunch of that generation socal was expected to be Monfils. He was the standout junior from that crop. Murray refers to him in his book as being an incredible junior. I think he was 1 match away from the junior calendar grand slam.

Gasquet was the other that was expected to take the world by storm. Both of those guys had far more expected of them than Novak or Andy as kids.

Danny_1982 wrote:The best of the bunch of that generation socal was expected to be Monfils. He was the standout junior from that crop. Murray refers to him in his book as being an incredible junior. I think he was 1 match away from the junior calendar grand slam.

Gasquet was the other that was expected to take the world by storm. Both of those guys had far more expected of them than Novak or Andy as kids.

Good call there Danny everyone was talking about the two young Frenchmen. Nadal was already incredible at this point and getting better and better and the next one was supposed to be Gazza. As a junior nobody was as effective of monfils. In my mind monfils is maybe the biggest disappointment of any player on tour in terms of the talent he has and the return he has had on that talent.

But in retrospect as a whole when you look at those guys that started breaking into the bigger events around 05 and 06 and were about Nadal, Djoko, and Murray's age; you realize what a truly impressive bunch of young players they really were in comparison to what we have seen on average, and certainly when compared to the current crop of young players. Gasquet, Nadal, Monfils, Murray, Djoko, Berdych, Tsonga, all within a two year age window. Some sage like commentator has even been bold and prescient enough to call them a golden generation for many years now.

That has been the real difference Danny in my opinion that Novak and Andy have dramatically improved while the other players in that talent crop of juniors and young pros have not kept up with the pace of these two. And Andy has quite kept up with Novak either but he has improved much more than the others. That is what irritates me with all this talk that despite fitness these two are not much better in terms of their shots.

I think two things elevated Novak and Andy from that group socal. Firstly both were fortunate to have close to the perfect physical stature, over 6ft but both very fast and nimble.

But over the other guys in that group they have the champion mentality. The ability to take weaknesses and improve them. The desire to be the best. Monfils has really good attributes, but he doesn't look like he wants it enough to me. Gasquet the same. Admittedly Gasquet isn't helped by the fact he's not as good an athlete and he's comparatively small.... But mentally he isn't anywhere near Novak or Andy.

I don't mean that to sound too harsh as I hate it when anyone outside the top 4 is described as 'rubbish'... They are obviously world class sportsmen. I'm just stating why I don't think those guys ended up being as successful.

No they are not rubbish that is for certain. Gasquet does lack the size and speed of djokovic and murray. Also Novak and andy were always good returners when they broke on tour. Looking at the trouble that the young prospects have today returning ATP serves one must really admire how both of them were among the best returners on tour almost from the very beginning.

But I agree the ability to get better, to improve one weaknesses and to even refine your strengths at a faster rate than the others is what has allowed these two to finish higher than the rest.