If Murray becomes no.1 - Part II

First topic message reminder :

When I first wrote this article "If Murray Becomes No.1 in 2013" after he lost his finals to Roger Federer in 2012 [yes the article was written after his finals defeat to Roger Federer in 2012] people laughed at me, some even believed he will never ever get to win a GS let alone No.1, while some believed he might some how scrap a slam but can never make to no.1 spot of his own.

1 year passed, I wanna know how much has been changed? now in stats Murray is a Multi-time Grand slam champion a multi-surface grand slam champion, a Wimbledon champion, World No.2 an Olympic Gold medallion ,  yea its all true, to be frank I didn't see all these coming however I did visualize some of them coming, the one that I didn't expect him to win is the one that stirred a pot of belief "The Olympic Gold Medal".

A honorable few mentions and some quotes of the old thread

1]Danny a Murray fan - "Personally I don't think Murray will ever make number 1. I think he will win slams,"

2]Lags - "I must stress that I've never been a member of the anti-Murray brigade and would be very happy to see him make the sort of leap you're talking about in 2013. But I don't think it will be anything like as straightforward as your article implies

3]HE  - Ha ha! Very funny. If you are being serious you are basing your prediction on wishful thinking or maybe you've been drinking?

4]Lydian [who never believed my visions let alone this one ]  - " I just dont see Murray doing it.  But above all I dont he has the consistency or strength of mind to get there or sustain a great run across the tennis year, For me #1 is about being a dominant leader...Murray simply isnt that."

5]Bogbrush [Never believed in current generation] - "My reservation about Djokovic is that, apart from 9 glorious months, he's never looked like he 'owned' the sport. That just goes triple for Murray."

6]Born Slippy - "He has the talent to be a dominant number 1 but, through a combination of a bit of poor luck and his own failings at the very highest level, he is probably past the point now when that might have happened."

7]CAS [partially believed it might be possible] - "Its of course possible he can one day get number 1, but I agree he is much more likely to nick a slam or 2. "

8]88chris05 [made a surprise visit to tennis forum for this comment ] - "Can't see any possible angle for Murray to become world number one, to be honest, barring a long-term injury for one of either Nadal or Djokovic as well as a steep decline over the next twelve months or so from Federer."

9]Polished-Man [sorry a bit WUM comment] - "why should Murray become number 1 in first instance, when it is apparent he doesn't possess the charisma, nor the technique, nor the ability, nor the attitude, nor the personality, nor the class of a world number 1 and furthermore is ginger head?"

10]Barrystar - "I think Murray will win a slam or two, but that won't get him to No. 1 other than very fleetingly if he can't address his tendency to suffer shock defeats and, probably also improve a bit on clay."

11]Norestat - "Judging from all the Murray interviews I would say that Murray will become No 1 in 1913."

12]Bitf - "Hopefully it will be Murray and Fed at the top, much more interesting than the other 2. I don't think he needs to be able to do much on clay to be number 1, not if he wins everywhere else."

Finally How ever
13]Banbro was the only one who gave a slight of positive thinking like me
"Good article. But for me, if Andy reaches No.1 then he's a different player ."[/i]

People can re-visit the thread for the comments that time made look funny .  - https://www.606v2.com/t32973p50-if-murray-becomes-no1-in-2013

Andy has not achieved my dreams yet, but he has made tremendous move to believe that it will happen sooner or later, I wanna know what you guys think of that thread and Andy's chances of becoming no.1 in the near future.

Murray is no Federer on clay...5 time French Open finalist (and winner), 3 time Hamburg Masters winner, 2 time Madrid Masters winner. Plus other clay achievements.

Clay exposes player movement (or lack of) like no other surface. Murray is nowhere near the silken mover of Nadal, Djokovic or Federer...he can't turn quickly or slide properly and this is exposed. His back problems emanate from poor clay movement.

He certainly can't slide properly, he nearly ripped his ligaments trying to in 2011. He moves like an absolute dream on hard and grass though, with explosive acceleration and great footwork.

Perhaps it's because he's such a powerful mover that he's not as good at getting about on the dirt as the more fleet footed Novak. Perhaps it's like a sprinter who tries to run on clay. This theory is slightly contradicted by how beautifully he moves on grass though, which you could argue is equally difficult to gain traction on.

Basically, it's a bit of a mystery. I don't think he'll ever solve the mystery either. If you can't move well on clay by 26 you aren't ever going to move well on it.

 

lydian wrote:Clay exposes player movement (or lack of) like no other surface

I'm confused

Are you saying that really Murray is a poor mover and this is shown by his clay performances?

If this is the case, can you tell me what you think Murray is good at, other than get the ball back

It's a good job Lydian we like you and in fairness you are easily our most knowledgable scriber (along with laverfan!!) otherwise we might suspect you're a Murray anti-Wum

Incidentally, Andy is rubbish on Clay - but this is nothing to do with it showing up his lack of movement and everything to do with his lack of confidence.

Because out of all the Big 4, Murray's biggest problem is now only how confident he is coming into a tournament

lydian wrote:Murray is no Federer on clay...5 time French Open finalist (and winner), 3 time Hamburg Masters winner, 2 time Madrid Masters winner. Plus other clay achievements.

Clay exposes player movement (or lack of) like no other surface. Murray is nowhere near the silken mover of Nadal, Djokovic or Federer...he can't turn quickly or slide properly and this is exposed. His back problems emanate from poor clay movement.

I do like the description of Nadal's brutish movement as "silken". Of the top 4 Nadal is the least natural mover. He relies on sheer explosive power to drag himself to the ball. Murray is more in the Nadal mode of movement than Federer but he's still a natural sprinter with real athletic technique. What clay exposes is a lack of sliding technique - something its generally relatively hard to learn if you don't grow up playing on it. Murray would be top 4 on clay if they played on it all year round but as he basically plays four events a year on it he struggles to adapt.

I'm giving Lydian the benefit of the doubt and assuming the movement point was specific to clay.

Because anyone that thinks Murray isn't an unbelievable mover on the other surfaces is watching a different sport to me. He's a brilliant mover! It almost couldn't be better.

Except on clay.

We`re talking clay, in the main, and I stand by my comments. Nasal is a more naturally gifted mover than Murray IMO by some distance, the way he can run around his BH with ridiculously quick multiple small steps is something Murray simply cannot copy. Its more than just being clay savvy.

I wrote further about Murray`s movement issues back in May. Read my 5-6 comments from here onwards for further analysis including photographic stroke analysis about him being late on shots on clay...yes BS sliding is a big issue and I commented on that too in the link below but its more than that, he has technical issues in the way he reaches out on wide FHs too that greatly strain his back, issues exacerbated by his clay movement...

https://www.606v2.com/t44355-murray-officially-withdraws-from-french-open#2070034

Odd though. You can twist it round just as easy and say that Muzz moves like a dream on grass, when Nadal and Djoko probably arent as comfortable. Grass tends to be one of the most difficult to move on, and nerve wracking. He just doesnt like the feel of clay when he moves, he definitely doesnt look comfortable sliding on it...

Definitely his movement hinders him on clay but I believe the back injury is brought about by him having to put extra pace on the forehand due to the slowness of the surface. If you watch how his hip almost follows through as well I'd say that must be the issue as that doesn't happen on any other surface.

I do not buy into the nonsense tags like he is 'rubbish' on clay. You do not reach a semi at RG and in Masters tournaments and stretch the great Nadal on that surface unless you have talent.

Not rubbish, of course, just not the mover the other 3 are.
Murray is a fantastic, explosive athlete, but quick/fine footwork isn't his greatest strength. Nadal is a 5 time Wimbledon finalist and 2 time winner, plus Queens winner, I think he knows how to move on grass!

I think Murray is a good clay court player but no more than that. On the one hand you could say he has reached one semi at Rolland Garros (impressive feat) but then on the other you can say he has never even reached a single tour final on clay. I am quite surprised by this given his talent.

It clearly is a movement thing, he doesnt seem to trust his footing on the surface. What is very interesting is how easily some of the players outside top 4 have dealt with him on clay. Berdych (hardly the greatest mover around but good for his height) has never lost to Murray on clay. Wawrinka (inferior mover to Murray) has handed him a couple of beatings on clay in recent years. Even Troicki had him on the ropes at French open before Murray turned it around either last year or year before.

Murray has the shots but it must be a confidence issue when it comes to movement. Perhaps he fears slipping when on the run, strange given that he moves so well on grass which itself can be very challenging.

probably just a mental block that goes back many years, hard to explain but only he knows why. He is so natural on other surfaces but it just doesnt translate to the dirt.

I would agree that it will be hard for him to improve on this but I do expect him to win a tournament or two in his career on clay. What is interesting is that grass is by far Novak's weakest surface yet his results are better than i would have expected from him. He has a wimbledon title, a runner up finish and countless SF and QF appearances. I wouldnt have predicted that earlier in his career

For raw speed, Andy and Novak are great movers.

I don't think the movement of either is that technically refined, however.

Novak has the advantage that his flexibility can cover a multitude of sins but I think Andy is doing himself damage a lot of the time. He's a big, muscular guy to be lunging like that.

Rafa is a bit of mixed bag. His footwork is quite graceful, the upper body not so much.

Roger in his pomp was perhaps the best mover I've seen. Not sure how he compared in terms of raw speed to the other three (pretty close, I'd say) but it was technically almost perfect.

As for Andy on clay, it's got to be the sliding. Rafa is the master at this, Novak is very good too (he even does it on hard court!). The rest of Andy's game would seem to lend itself to clay.

Murray is a good mover.

His exposure on Clay is the lack of sliding and weight distribution of his movement. It isn't his favoured surface, but his movement isn't dreadful. Just not cut out for Clay.

It would be a mighty effort if he became a force on clay in the next few years he's a danger man still though

Agree with HM. Novak and Andy cover the court amazingly, both extremely quick but Murray powerful like a sprinter and Novak with his elasticity.

Both have great balance, but neither footwork that is as pleasing on the eye as Roger who, especially in his peak, used to float around the court and made it look effortless.

Will Murray ever solve the puzzle on clay? I think we'll see him in semi finals again, which is not too shabby of course, but I wouldn't mind betting that he'll end his career without a single clay court title.