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!

Interesting post Lydian. I agree that he probably has gone too far down the physical route. Of course he needed to get fitter but he now seems hellbent on becoming the fittest and strongest. It's almost as if he's making the statement 'I dare you to try and hit through me or take me on in an endurance test'.

I think this approach is probably fine against Fed on the slower courts as we saw in oz but I'm not sure it'll work against Rafa and especially Novak who can play the game just as well but is also more clinical in ending the points.

Eventually the muscle gains will impact on his movement.



emancipator

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.

I agree to a point. But his Olympic win was the Murray he liked. That day he outhought Roger and delivered an almost perfect performance of guile, tactics and power - all used for the correct amounts of time and when needed

There is a worry that at times (i.e. the DP) match, he's too busy trying to show that he's now got a great forehand (??) he now forgets to use the other aspects of his game

He now has every shot that is ranked as one of the best in the world - problem is choosing them at the correct times

Wow.

All of a sudden Andy was a better player a few years ago.

Sorry for the scepticism but I cannot recall all this praise for him all those years ago - more like I remember people insisting he would never win a slam. Now that he has ticked off that box we are being told he was playing better years ago.

I thought his match against Gasquet at 2012 French Open was full of Murray showing his skill, made Gasquet look like a child, 3rd and 4th sets it was cruel

I half agree with Lydian, although don't think it's quite as black and white as choosing physicality over shot-making variety.

Look back over the last couple of years, and when Andy has played opponents who rely on guile and court-craft (I'm thinking of matches against Santoro and Llodra in particular), and he's taken them on at their own game and used drops, lobs and short angles to pull them all over the court. The problem is that when he's up against Nadal or Djokovic he doesn't trust these tactics (even as a change-up) and reverts to his baseline counter-punching.

I had hoped that getting the slam monkey off his back might see him loosen up a bit on court and that he would remember he is one of the best volleyers and touch players in the game (certainly better and far more natural than Djokovic in this regard), and that he would become more prepared to utilise these assets. I'm not suggesting he totally changes tack to become a serve-volley player or anything silly like that, but just uses the variations he has in his game to keep opponents more off-balance.

socal1976 wrote: 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.

Firstly, my points weren't criticisms. More observations.

Re: fitness, Murray has to be the most muscle bound of all top players now. Given where he started from that's taken some serious dedication. Contrary to popular belief Nadal isn't that muscly...big arms but that's about it, he's quite narrow shouldered if anything. My point is that Murray put SO MUCH effort into the physical side that its bound to have come at the expense of his game...there are only so many hours in the day you can train. Yes he needed to toughen up, we all remember the cramps, etc, but IMO he's gone overboard. Too much muscle restricts movement also, and if not done properly can reduce the number of ratio of fast/slow twitch fibres.

Murray was never meant to be this muscle man, his game was nothing like Nadal and Djokovic's. It was finesse-based, guile-based...but he's changed that completely into frankly quite boring rallying. Nadal has much more variation than him now. I say again Socal....how do you explain being 6-2 H2H on Federer up to around early summer 2009, then for that to be semi reversed 5-7 since? Federer didn't like the guile and variation, but he's seen less of it since then and finds Murray's play much more predictable and even (hard) paced.

Dummy-half, but imagine if Murray had dedicated himself to that brand of tennis and really honed it? He'd have still had power but with it more variation and unpredictability. Winning 8-9 Masters and a slam is great but maybe he could have done much more with a game so different from everyone else?

Well for a start you mention drop shots dummy half but the likes of Djokovic is one of the quickest players on the tour so they are far less effective against him. Lobs he does still use very often. Besides I seem to recall the slatings he used to get for his drop shots so it seems that he cannot win.

Like I said earlier why didn't I hear all this praise gushing out for Andy three or four years ago when he was supposedly playing a better game? All I heard was he would never win a slam or mentally weak etc etc etc.

People should remember that tennis like any other sport is a results-based game. If Andy's game has gone off in the last year or so then great as his achievements in that time surpass those of when his game was easier on the eye. Besides as I say I struggle to recall the glowing praise of Andy's play three or four years ago from non-Andy fans on sports forums around the world.

There was loads of praise for Murray a few years ago. For example, he was massively hyped as favourite for the Australian in 2009. Any criticism was generally based on a hope that he didn't succeed rather than any real analysis.

Hype isn't praise. Hype is a creation in media circles. I am talking about the forums of the world and if you turn the clock back three or four (even just two years ago) and the over-riding remarks were he would never win a slam or that he was mentally weak.

Excellent post Lydian; how many times would Andy throw in the drop shots (sure, sometimes in error but the fact they could come at any time was a muddler for his opponents), now he never does it.

He could have got a bit fitter and still kept his quirky game. He could still have worked on his forehand technique without losing variety. Over all, Lendl has helped some important parts of his game but whether it's been two steps forward at the cost of another two back is open to question.

Sorry but this is all getting a bit daft.

How many slams did Andy win when (allegedly) his game was so different? NONE. Plenty of Masters titles yes but the slams were just a distant dream and I think it may very well have remained that way as you can get stuck in ruts (look at Nadal with reference to his playing style V Djokovic).

Since Lendl came on board Andy has reached three out of four slam finals winning one. Whereas his previous slam finals (pre-Lendl) Andy never won a set whilst under Lendl he has never failed to win at least a set in his slam finals. His Masters titles may not be coming as regularly but is that really such an issue?

In short it would seem that Andy should ditch this more successful approach to return to his quirky past when his quality and mentality was questioned across the internet. Why?

Also on the physical side I tend to think that has helped his mental side of his game. He now goes on to court feeling physically strong so that must surely put him mentally in a far better place as well. In the past when his quirky phase was there and he was physically weaker that, in turn, probably meant he had doubts there about his physical shape....not good.

Lydian. Yes the H2H between Murray and Federer was 6-2 in mid-2009 but by the end of the AO 2010 it was down to 6-5 and at that time I don't think Murray had really changed anything. Federer had made his comments about Murray's 'waiting for mistakes' in early 2008 which is oft quoted on this site. Murray had, in the main, continued to play the same way as it was working against Federer who eventually worked out how to beat it.

As CC alludes to above I think Murray's game plateaud between 2009 and 2011. Playing the way he was would beat most opponents most days and get him to the sharp end of tournaments but when he came up against the top 3 especially in the slams it just didn't work. That's what he was trying to address when bringing Lendl in. In some ways that has worked as he has made more slam finals and actually won one . However I still feel he is often caught between two stools when deciding whether to attack or to fall back on his more solid defensive game.

Don't get me wrong folks I am not saying everything is rosy. I still see areas for improvements in Murray's game such as clay form, second serve, even better consistency and more consistent aggression. It is just that it is not about what route he has gone down (physical) as that has evidently helped him.

CC - by Aug 2008 Murray had reached his first slam final. It took him another 18 months to get to another...strangely after that period of changing his game/muscle route from mid-2009. Also, yes he won a slam last year but don't get me started on USO12 (AO13 showed what happens when Djokovic isn't badly affected by wind). 2012 was also a weird year with Nadal not being around. I don't buy this huge breakthrough Murray meant to be showing...he had a good summer patch plus Nadal wasn't around and Federer was completely knackered for that OG final.

Exactly BB. Just look at Federer...he's got arms like Gilles Simon...of course he's got wiry strength and huge fitness but he doesn't need muscles like Murray. Ok, the guy is insanely talented but then so is Murray (to perhaps a lesser degree of course but still right up there).

Murray basically took the easy option from mid-2009. Its always easier to pound the muscles than be brave and work on honing a quirky game into something truly different - yes, with some strength too. Santoro spent a lifetime honing his quirky game without the talent, height and strength of Murray - Safin absolutely hated Santoro, as did many others, not many enjoyed playing him at all and for all his limitations physically he did amazingly well with huge longevity. Just imagine the game Murray could have developed if he'd truly dedicated himself to play a game of unpredictability like Mecir did. When Mecir came along he was different too - I remember him playing McEnroe and causing him all manner of problems at WTFs in the 80s (Mecir won). We know Lendl is all about discipline, strength, fitness, execute Plan A to 100% and never lose focus. All great attributes but I don't see much court craft from Andy any more. He's become a kind of Ferrer-Plus when he used to be Mecir/Santoro-Plus. Federer has shown you don't have to be Mr Muscle to win slams...Murray didn't have to be either but in becoming so his muscles dictate his type of play now.

I read on a forum in Sept 2008 someone asking whether Murray or Djokovic would have the better careers...this was the general sentiment, and I quote:
"Novak's game is more solid right now, but Murray's got a bit more talent and variety, so if he keeps improving he could overtake Djokovic."

People could see Murray's talent being clearly above Djokovic's back then...so where has all that talent and variety gone? Into his vein-bulging arms and legs it would seem. If Murray comes through and sweeps up in 2013 then I'll eat my words but I have a nagging feeling it isn't going to happen.

Calder106 wrote:Federer had made his comments about Murray's 'waiting for mistakes' in early 2008 which is oft quoted on this site. Murray had, in the main, continued to play the same way as it was working against Federer who eventually worked out how to beat it.

But that's my point. He needed to hone that quirky game which required a more aggressive mindset...that was Murray's problem, he had the guile but not the overt aggressive mindset. The aggressive mindset wasn't worked on, the muscles were. Guys like Federer exploited the increasing lack of variety and passiveness in Murray's game as he sat back on the baseline trying to muscle matches more. Aggressiveness was always Andy's problem...and a dithering decisiveness over whether to pursue his inherent talents or change tack. He chose what I perceive as the easy route and guys like Federer and Djokovic found him increasingly easier to play (relatively that is).

The 2009 watershed crops up again too.
Up until summer 2009 Andy was almost level pegging with Djokovic at 3-4 in the H2H.
Since then Djokovic has turned it into 7-3 (discounting Cincy retirement).

That means against Djokovic and Federer, before summer 2009 he was 9-6 up.
Since then he's gone 8-14 down.

Its clear something happened after summer 2009...despite the recent slam success he's struggling more against the big 3 from 10-13 than he did 06-09.
You've heard my thoughts, I simply think he backed the wrong horse.
Its not a disaster but I hope he doesn't wonder "what if" in 4-5 years...

Hmm I wonder how many slams Mecir and Santoro won between them? Zilch, zero, nada, none that is how many. Aesthetically pleasing on the eye perhaps but slam winners they weren't and I feel neither would Andy of been. If you aren't achieving your goal you look to change it and that is what Andy has done. His goal was to become a slam winner and he has worked hard and made changes to his game and achieved that. And by the way I feel the bigger key you have tapped into for Andy is - aggression. It is nothing to do with his more muscle-bound self now or ditching his quirky side as I still see that there. For me Andy looks far better when playing ultra-aggressive and he has improved in that area under Lendl definitely. I would just like to see him stick with the aggression and stay away from passiveness as it does him no real favours.

Yes he is more aggressive now - but its taken him 4-5 years to work out that's what he needed to do...maybe he didn't need the muscles after all hey? Maybe had he had a clearer mindset in 08/09 he'd have stuck to his game plan, became aggressive and who knows maybe won a slam earlier than mid-2012?

Re: Santoro, you're being disingenuous - I didn't say Murray was the same as Santoro did I. Re: Mecir, he had chronic back trouble from 25...and retired at 26. He reached 2 slam finals, WTF final, won OG Gold...so his career wasn't dissimilar to Murray up to 25 year old but he had to retire from the game.

Anyway, I'll dip out, I've made my point.... 9-6 up vs Fed/Djo to summer 09, then 8-14 down afterwards. He's also on a 3 match losing streak to Djokovic at the moment...I don't think he's "kicking on" as much as he could have if he'd been bold and gone for aggressive variety rather than aggressive gym work.

Yes and I have made my point.

Pre-muscles and Lendl three slam finals three defeats and no sets won in six years.

With muscles/physicality three slam finals two defeats and one win and five sets won in less than 18 months.

It is all about opinions really and you have made valid point on aggression but less valid about the quirky side in my opinion as it is still there.

Quirky = variety. For variety to succeed you have to be aggressive. An aggressive allcourt mindset has always been Andy's problem and still is. My point is that the muscle-route has cemented Andy to the baseline when at heart he's a very adept allcourt player. He's become a more aggressive baseliner when he could have become a more aggressive allcourt player.

Figure this...in the Australian Open this year Stan Wawrinka gave Djokovic the tougher match. Time and time again Murray would hit great aggressive shots into the corners but refused to come into the net being glued to the baseline as he is these days. Murray came into the net 15 times against Djokovic, Stan came in 56 times.

Its not about being "quirky" its about variety creating a truly allcourt player. Murray used to be one (albeit too passive), but instead he turned into an aggressive baseliner with muscles. His problem is unfortunately there are 2 better aggressive baseliners around who also come into the net more - in that match where Murray came in only 15 times guess how many times Djokovic came in ... 41 times.

Yes hitting aggressive shots Andy can do and his failing is not getting up to the net after hitting them but that isn't about variety it is about knowing to pounce to kill a rally in its tracks which Andy should do more. He still has all those quirky shots and inventive shots though.

On a personal note, as Federer approaches the end I need a top player to root for. Murray might have been that player, I could see myself really wanted a guy who keeps me guessing to go on. I couldn't care less about a Djokovic look-alike.

I thought BB you were swearing yourself into the Grigor Dmitrov camp?

Sorry I don't buy that CC. No use having all the tools but keeping them in the bag. It's about lack of employed variety - through his passiveness at coming forwards. He's cemented to baseline. Even Djokovic comes in far more than Murray these days. The whole point is that Andy should be the one coming in more than Djokovic! It was his natural game to do so but he's deserted it and now is paying the price for camping on the baseline.

Stan showed the way to beat Djokovic was by using variety and coming into the net more often. Murray had all the talent and guile to find lots more ways into the net to finish points quicker but he chose another way. The irony is that in finishing points quicker you don't require the same amount of conditioning either.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I thought BB you were swearing yourself into the Grigor Dmitrov camp?

I will, but the lad has to feature at the business end of the big stuff otherwise I'm just watching him in week 1.

bogbrush wrote:On a personal note, as Federer approaches the end I need a top player to root for. Murray might have been that player, I could see myself really wanted a guy who keeps me guessing to go on. I couldn't care less about a Djokovic look-alike.

What if Djokovic got a better hair style? Or indeed a hair style?

lydian wrote:Stan showed the way to beat Djokovic was by using variety and coming into the net more often.

Stan showed the way to nearly beat Djokovic was by using variety and coming to the net....

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:On a personal note, as Federer approaches the end I need a top player to root for. Murray might have been that player, I could see myself really wanted a guy who keeps me guessing to go on. I couldn't care less about a Djokovic look-alike.

What if Djokovic got a better hair style? Or indeed a hair style?

It would be a major step forward, no question about it. I don't care if he starts playing like the gene-spliced semi-clone of Roger Federer, John McEnroe and Rod Laver; with hair resembling a 7 year old done in a rush by his Dad with a buzzer he's not getting my vote.

Whilst I agree the Murray style of 2008-9 was perhaps more appealing because of its quirkiness, I'm with Craig on this that continuing down that path was never going to bring the success that he has had since Lendl and hopefully going forward.

Most forums and expert opinion back then was that Murray had to find a way to be more aggressive. He had to take a more attacking court position and hit through the ball more. He was described as a complex pusher back in the day and its true (to my memory anyway) that most thought the path he was on would not lead to slam success.

The fact is that he hadn't pushed the top guys in the matches that mattered for years. Since Lendl's changes he has, beating both Federer and Djokovic at slams for the first time and beating both to win the Olympics.

When Rafa loses matches, he usually loses them to aggressive hitters. Think Siderling at FO, Rosol at SW19, Novak now that he has become more aggressive. I don't think there's any other way past Rafa.

He beat Roger by playing on the front foot at AO... It has got him results so it has to be the right way to go. As much fun? Maybe not. But as Lendl said in an interview a while back... Great hands and invention isn't enough. You have to try and outhit these guys. So far, he's right.

Well surprise surprise that Lendl isn't a devotee of great hands and invention!

But it's a false choice; nobody is saying he didn't have more to do, just that in acquiring the physique of a top boxer he also seems to have cut much of the creativity out of his game. That makes him, for me, a less interesting player to watch and I don't quite see why it was essential to also address some other issues.

Indeed BB. Danny, they don't have to be mutually exclusive bedfellows - you can have power AND variety. Its what's served Federer pretty well. Speaking of which, beating Roger at AO isn't the type of result it used to be...its now a turgidly slow HC and Roger was 31.5 yrs old. Murray did what he does best now, ground him into errors.

A better indicator of where Murray is now at was the final. A final where we saw Djokovic come into the net 41 times to Murray's 15 times. Djokovic ended up winning the match by some margin. Conclusion - simply staying glued to the baseline and grinding away wasnt enough to win.

Also, related to OP, his performance at IW wasn't great. You mention outhitting people but he couldn't outhit or out-manoeuvre Del Potro. The answer isn't to always meet fire with more fire - the Murray/Lendl mindset is all about trying to achieve the oxymoron of aggressive grinding. Miami showed that, where it wasn't firepower beat Ferrer. It was lack of variety and outgrinding the grinder. It was a truly abject showing of lack of allcourt skill.

Figure this (again)...in that Miami final, Ferrer had a higher average MPH on groundstrokes. Ferrer went to the net 21 times to Murray's just 14 times! Ferrer played a higher % shots inside the baseline than Murray. Ferrer won a greater % of the shorter points, Murray more of the 10+ ralley points. So what does all this tell us? Murray has become the ultimate grinder! He out-ground Ferrer!

Then we saw him completely outplayed by Wawrinka at MC, Stan again using much more allcourt skill and variety than Andy.

So if this is Lendl's masterplan to turn Andy into a muscle-bound guy, glued to the baseline grinder with nothing but cross court FHs and BHs then he's succeeding brilliantly. Andy isn't outhitting anyone, he's just grinding them to death from the baseline. That's his problem. Bravo Ivan - you've stripped Murray down to basics. The mind is much better now because Andy doesn't have to worry about how to use all the tools at his disposal anymore. The problem is he's got no tools left in the bag except the angle-GRINDER!

In becoming a grinder the tour has learnt they can live with and beat him by using the very thing he now seems to lack himself - power and variety! Ironic hey.

HMM - that's what I meant by the syntax I used...Stan "showed the way" - i.e. showed the way for others. I know he didn't win, I live and breathed the whole 5 hours.

lydian wrote:HMM - that's what I meant by the syntax I used...Stan "showed the way" - i.e. showed the way for others. I know he didn't win, I live and breathed the whole 5 hours.

I was only joshing.

I'm envy you living and breathing that 5 hours though. I spent most of it holding my breath and only a palpitation or two away from keeling over!

HMM

Oh I can bet being a Nole fan...it was knife-edge stuff and still the best match of the year so far. From a neutral perspective its a shame Stan couldn't get the breakthrough but you always have to admire Novak's stickability. I was dashing inbetween games my son was playing at a tennis tournament to catch the match in the café area of the sports club. Great match.

I don't agree Murray ground Federer into errors in Oz. He was the aggressor throughout that match. However, that was something of an anomaly for the rest of this year so far. I'm also not sure anyone has figured out how to beat him - Del Potro only beat him because Murray made countless basic errors and he then won Miami without ever getting out of second gear.

What we are really talking about here is how he could get an edge on Djokovic. To do that, he does have to add back in the variety. Trying to out Djokovic him isn't the right way to go.

Lydian - I don't think he's done away with variety as much as you think he has, but that's a subjective thing. Will have to agree to disagree on that one. I still see him win a lot of points through quirky shots. That variety won him the US open.

By the way, I completely agree with you about the Delpo match. I think Murray has to try and outhit the top guys to succeed in big matches personally - with a pinch of variety too, particularly against Novak - but he had a 5-1 record against Delpo through mixing his shots and keeping the ball low. He should never have approached that match the way he did.

As for the AO final showing where he is, two and a half sets in it was incredibly tight. A caption popped up that said Murray 101 points Dkokovic 99... But Novak outlasted him and Murray faded. The complete opposite of the 5th set in New York.

So I personally don't think the gap was that huge on the day. I wish he'd used his slice a bit more as it troubles Novak, but it is a surface that Djokovic is particularly excellent on. Suits him down to the ground. He's not quite as effective on the slightly quicker USO courts.

I think your points are really interesting, I just don't quite agree as someone who watches virtually every Murray match. I wanted him to make the changes that you think have resulted in a more boring (and possibly less effective) player. And that is because I think without the changes he'd have won 0 slams, and with them I expect him to win a few more.

What he has done now, I wish he'd done in 2008.

I thought Federer played a relatively poor match that night with the wrong tactics. He hadn't played a warm up event prior to AO and looked rusty, spraying errors all over the place from his FH and shanking the BH too. Murray often didn't have to do an awful lot with Federer making loads of over-aggressive errors. So I guess we have different takes on the match.

Fair points Danny, nothing is quite black and white in this game and Murray still plays well don't get me wrong. I just think he's becoming a little bit of a grinder because he's starting to - or rather able to - rely more and more on his amazing stamina/strength. He'll never be a power player like Delpo, Fed, Djokovic, or Nadal on the FH side. He's a more even paced player who can hit the odd great shot. He relies on consistency, counterpunching and driving opponents into error. He is abit more aggressive but its still mainly from the baseline. Fair enough, those are the conditions of the tour these days - but when he's getting outdone for net approaches by Djokovic and Ferrer (haven't checked Delpo & others), you kind of scratch your head abit given he comes from a fast court background.

I'm very cautious about declaring Andy's victory over Fed in Australia as a sign of progress.

Fed is in his 32nd year, struggling with his body and very clearly on a slow (but I suspect quickening) decline.

As Fed tails off, the simple fact is that all Andy has to do is stay still and eventually that victory in a slam would come.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that a super-fit 25 year old in the prime of his career taking 5 sets to beat someone 6 years his senior is heralded as a milestone of progress.

Lydian - that is one thing I 100% agree with you on, Murray should visit the net way more often than he does now. He's a brilliant volleyer, as good as anyone in my opinion, and has great reach. It baffles me that he doesn't use it more.

lydian wrote:I thought Federer played a relatively poor match that night with the wrong tactics. He hadn't played a warm up event prior to AO and looked rusty, spraying errors all over the place from his FH and shanking the BH too. Murray often didn't have to do an awful lot with Federer making loads of over-aggressive errors. So I guess we have different takes on the match.

Fair points Danny, nothing is quite black and white in this game and Murray still plays well don't get me wrong. I just think he's becoming a little bit of a grinder because he's starting to - or rather able to - rely more and more on his amazing stamina/strength. He'll never be a power player like Delpo, Fed, Djokovic, or Nadal on the FH side. He's a more even paced player who can hit the odd great shot. He relies on consistency, counterpunching and driving opponents into error. He is abit more aggressive but its still mainly from the baseline. Fair enough, those are the conditions of the tour these days - but when he's getting outdone for net approaches by Djokovic and Ferrer (haven't checked Delpo & others), you kind of scratch your head abit given he comes from a fast court background.

Fed had the toughest route to the semi-final of anyone and had looked awesome. I don't see how he could have been rusty by the semi-final. I can happily agree he didn't play a good match (quite how he got it to 5 sets was a mystery) but Murray's style of play in that match certainly wasn't to grind him into error. Completely agree on the net approaches point.

Completely agree with the points Lydian has made, I've been saying the same thing myself for a while. For me Murray was at his best in 2008 and perhaps some of 2009. Even in the French open match where Gonzales was immense, Murray managed to take a set I think or make a mini turn around by almost imitating him and going for massive power. He was really able to adapt, change and use his variety and in my opinion could have been the best of the top 4.

Born Slippy wrote:

lydian wrote:I thought Federer played a relatively poor match that night with the wrong tactics. He hadn't played a warm up event prior to AO and looked rusty, spraying errors all over the place from his FH and shanking the BH too. Murray often didn't have to do an awful lot with Federer making loads of over-aggressive errors. So I guess we have different takes on the match.

Fair points Danny, nothing is quite black and white in this game and Murray still plays well don't get me wrong. I just think he's becoming a little bit of a grinder because he's starting to - or rather able to - rely more and more on his amazing stamina/strength. He'll never be a power player like Delpo, Fed, Djokovic, or Nadal on the FH side. He's a more even paced player who can hit the odd great shot. He relies on consistency, counterpunching and driving opponents into error. He is abit more aggressive but its still mainly from the baseline. Fair enough, those are the conditions of the tour these days - but when he's getting outdone for net approaches by Djokovic and Ferrer (haven't checked Delpo & others), you kind of scratch your head abit given he comes from a fast court background.

Fed had the toughest route to the semi-final of anyone and had looked awesome. I don't see how he could have been rusty by the semi-final. I can happily agree he didn't play a good match (quite how he got it to 5 sets was a mystery) but Murray's style of play in that match certainly wasn't to grind him into error. Completely agree on the net approaches point.

I may get some stick for this but I firmly believe Fed was struggling with his back in that match or at least with his movement. He looked sooooo slow from the Tomic match onwards. He was also wearing that protective vest. Annacone said as much after the tournament.

Anyway in that Murray match Fed was really struggling to get to anything out wide. Incidentally in IW I thought Fed looked razor sharp with his movement in the first couple of matches until he tweaked his back. The best his movement had looked for about a year. Even the normally insipid commentators noticed as much. Anyway as a long term fed fan I can always tell when his movement is hampered and I said as much during the Murray match. Nevertheless Muray did play a v good match and deserved to win.

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?

Kingraf

Lydian's arguments recently have really left me perplexed. He claims that all of Djokovic's improvement is due to fitness and that age 20 he basically is the same ball striker that he was 5 years ago and in fact his serve maybe worse. This after 5 years of assiduous work on the court. All of Djokovic's improvement are pretty much all of it comes down to fitness. Then simultaneously he argues that murray seeing this should have spent his time working on his shots and less time on his fitness. Why is that? I mean if Nadal and Novak after five years of working on their shots are equal to or worse than they were in 08 why would murray work on his shots? Why wouldn't he just get into the weight room?


I mean for years Lydian talked up Federer's fitness and his regime with pagnianni, Federer didn't lose his variety because how fit he was why would it cause Andy to lose his variety? Instead we hear comments like there are only so many hours to train in a day and that Andy should have spent less time in the gym and more time on the court? Why is that when according to some all of Djokovic's gains have been in fitness and he is the current world #1?

For years people talked about how murray needed a better forehand, he got it and won a slam and now we hear that his approach his wrong. As much as I like and respect Lydian's posts his arguments of late aren't even internally consistent and logical. I mean if after 5 years of on the court work Novak and Nadal are equal to or worse at hitting a tennis ball then why would murray waste his time working on his shots? Whats the point after 5 years all of Novak's improvements come from fitness, and he stagnated as a ball striker at age 20. Why would murray work on his shots and less in the gym if fitness is the end all and be all to modern tennis and all the gains made in recent years have been in fitness and fitness alone?

Born Slippy wrote:

lydian wrote:I thought Federer played a relatively poor match that night with the wrong tactics. He hadn't played a warm up event prior to AO and looked rusty, spraying errors all over the place from his FH and shanking the BH too. Murray often didn't have to do an awful lot with Federer making loads of over-aggressive errors. So I guess we have different takes on the match.

Fair points Danny, nothing is quite black and white in this game and Murray still plays well don't get me wrong. I just think he's becoming a little bit of a grinder because he's starting to - or rather able to - rely more and more on his amazing stamina/strength. He'll never be a power player like Delpo, Fed, Djokovic, or Nadal on the FH side. He's a more even paced player who can hit the odd great shot. He relies on consistency, counterpunching and driving opponents into error. He is abit more aggressive but its still mainly from the baseline. Fair enough, those are the conditions of the tour these days - but when he's getting outdone for net approaches by Djokovic and Ferrer (haven't checked Delpo & others), you kind of scratch your head abit given he comes from a fast court background.

Fed had the toughest route to the semi-final of anyone and had looked awesome. I don't see how he could have been rusty by the semi-final. I can happily agree he didn't play a good match (quite how he got it to 5 sets was a mystery) but Murray's style of play in that match certainly wasn't to grind him into error. Completely agree on the net approaches point.

There is no excuses for Fed's loss but Fed didn't do himself any favour by playing 5 sets against Tsonga, he wasn't rusty but certainly tired after the previous encounter and couldn't deliver the goods on Murray's match, Murray was the better player on the given day, but given Fed's age I guess semifinal was very good achievement.

I agree that Murray took a wrong turn (or, more precisely, did not take the right turn) somewhere around 2009 but I do not agree that the problem is the abandonment of his "quirkiness". Quirky tennis does not win slams.

Andy has always had tendency to be too passive and he needed to add aggression to his game. He always had the ability to do it, but rarely employed it in practice. When I watched his USO 08 SF against Rafa, I thought that would be his coming of age moment. Not only did he win that match, but he won it playing the right tactics. For once he was aggressive and it worked. It was the first time he made the slam final. He was not all out aggressive, but he played with what I would term "controlled aggression", and what I think is the way he should play most of his matches.

However, for whatever reason, instead of learning from that success and trying to build on it, he reverted to his defensive self and perhaps became even more defensive with time. I think he then pretty much wasted (ok, slight exaggeration) his next three or so years and finally started to play more aggressively again last year - and again with success.

Strangely enough, it has been a mixed bag since the USO as far as his approach goes, as if he was again toying with the idea of going more defensive (I hope not).

As a side-note, I agree that he was quite aggressive in his AO match against Federer this year; he was not just trying to outlast Roger there.

kingraf wrote: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?

Exactly.

Danny_1982 wrote:When Rafa loses matches, he usually loses them to aggressive hitters. Think Siderling at FO, Rosol at SW19, Novak now that he has become more aggressive.

Surely not?

You must be watching some very different Rafa-Novak matches from the ones that I have seen. Novak is less aggressive than he used to be prior to 2011, the main difference is that he can now stay with Rafa in the rallies. Yes, he is still more aggressive than Rafa, but less aggressive than he used to be.

summerblues wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:When Rafa loses matches, he usually loses them to aggressive hitters. Think Siderling at FO, Rosol at SW19, Novak now that he has become more aggressive.

Surely not?

You must be watching some very different Rafa-Novak matches from the ones that I have seen. Novak is less aggressive than he used to be prior to 2011, the main difference is that he can now stay with Rafa in the rallies. Yes, he is still more aggressive than Rafa, but less aggressive than he used to be.

I disagree with this, Novak hit 28 winners in two sets against Nadal on a slow clay court in monte carlo that is a pretty good number no matter how you cut it. Djokovic didn't win in MC because he out lasted Rafa in the rallies, if you watch that match he was taking the first good ball he saw on either side and doing damage with it. For Novak v. Nadal match there were actually very few lengthy rallies. Djokovic hit nearly half his backhands up the line that is being exceptionally aggressive.