Andy Murray - A Unique Rise To Success

Andy Murray now stands proudly with the US Open, Wimbledon title and Olympic Gold and Silver medals and it has been a long and painful route to his success unlike any of the other top players in the game today.

Andy lived through the trauma of the Dunblane tragedy (if you don't think it effects him watch the documentary 'The Man Behind The Racket'). He took up tennis and took an unconventional route away from the LTA and involved a bit of improvisation badgering his mum to allow him to go to a tennis academy is Spain where a young Rafa was training and practising with top tennis players of the time. After Junior success at the US Open the talent was there but his early career was blighted by lack of fitness issues and he pledged to work on that and was good to his word. Success on the circuit as a pro soon came and gradually expectations grew.

In 2006 came another hurdle he had to overcome. The British media got hold of comments made in a banter-filled exchange with Tim Henman and Murray was branded a bigot and this hung like a millstone around his neck. He never let it affect his tennis but off-court it made life tough. Meanwhile, though he would be about to fulfil a dream and reach slam finals. However, they ended in heavy defeats with performances that failed to live up to expectation which had to knock both confidence and self-belief especially as these slam final defeats began to stack up.

At the beginning of 2012, Ivan Lendl became his coach. An all-time great of the sport himself in the 80's and 90's he had suffered similar tough defeats in his first few slams but turned the losing streak around. The Czech also shared Murray's hard work ethic and dedication and a similar wicked dry sense of humour. Lendl's effect was immediate and Murray showed a new sense of belief and new aggressive approach and since that point he has reached four slam finals out of six winning two slams and Olympic Gold and I get the impression he hasn't finished yet.

Andy will never reach the amount of success of Nadal or Federer that is certain but for me he has had to deal with so much more to get where he is. Personal tragedy, making it in tennis as a Brit, media pressure, fan pressure and a number of heavy slam defeats to bounce back from before realising his goals. That is what makes his a unique rise to success.

Yeah, I'm pleased for the guy. I'm sure he'll bag some more too as I can't see what pressure of expectation is left on him. Even if he doesn't he's in good shape.

It was hard for him to play Federer and then Djokovic in early slam finals (Nadal's first vs Puerta, Djokovic vs Tsonga, Federer v Philippoussis), although in some ways he didn't look up to it in those early finals anyway.

Some of the points are in the article are a bit weak in substance, all players have their challenges. Well done to him anyway.

I'm not one for getting overly sentimental on someone's rise to the top (and all I'll say on Dunblane is that it's great that Murray has put the place on map for positive reasons). I'm more interested in looking at how the various pieces of jigsaw have come together to make Murray a Wimbledon winner...

Hiring Lendl - great choice - Lendl hasn't made any fundamental changes to Murray's game - just worked on the tactical and mental side in the big matches - has really paid dividends. The biggest single aspect that impressed me with Murray's performance was the way he played the clutch points, producing his biggest serves and best groundstrokes. He showed great mental strength and composure in coming back 2 sets down against Verdasco.

Missing the French Open this year - this was due to back injury sustained in Rome, but proved to be an excellent decision - the extra rest enabled Murray to spend more time on the grass, and when it mattered, playing Djokovic in the final, he was that bit more sharp on the surface.

Confidence gained from 2012 Olympics. That Gold medal win (yes, helped a little bit by Del Potro pushing Federer v hard in semi-final) was a crucial confidence booster, and up to then, Murray was still a notch below Federer and Nadal on grass. In the end, Murray played neither this year at Wimbledon, but he's really grown in stature on the surface.

Improved fitness - this has come about over past 3-4 years, and the improvements made there pre-date Murray's involvement with Lendl. Fitness is such a crucial part of the game today and Murray is up there as one of the fittest players on the tour - vital when you're reaching closing stages of slam.

Improved 1st serve percentage - whilst the 2nd serve is still arguably the biggest weakness in his game, Murray's 1st serve is a real strength - he served more aces than anyone this year bar Janowicz and the high serving percentage on 1st serve against Djokovic was vital, particularly at the business end of each set.

Henman Bill wrote:It was hard for him to play Federer and then Djokovic in early slam finals (Nadal's first vs Puerta, Djokovic vs Tsonga, Federer v Philippoussis), although in some ways he didn't look up to it in those early finals anyway.

Some of the points are in the article are a bit weak in substance, all players have their challenges. Well done to him anyway.

I am not denying players have their own challenges but out of the 'big four' only Murray has had to deal with a ghastly tragedy as a boy (unless we want to count Novak's war torn Serbia background which I'd say is similar), had to deal with media portraying him as a bigot when still a teenager and that still sticks in some quarters today (would certainly say Federer, Nadal and Djokovic haven't had anything like that), having to take a long line of heavy slam final defeats before realising his goal unlike the other three, having to deal with the massive media hype and pressure about will he/can he and 77 years blah blah blah (certainly doesn't apply to the other three).

Great article Craig.

As Henman Bill says, all players have their challenges... But to have gone through what his family and community did in Dunblane, a media stitch up which turned a lot of England against him for years, and come out the other side as one of Britain's greatest sporting achievers in recent history is phenomenal.

To win 2 slams and the Olympics in 11 months, and have a large percentage of Britain suddenly behind him and screaming their affection... Well, it must feel amazing and I'm delighted for him.

Yes this is a little gushing, but I don't care. The boy has done himself, his fans, Dunblane, Scotland and Britain proud.

It may seem a little gushing and I apologise to people if that is how they see it. However, I certainly feel there are no falsehoods in it. He has had to work so hard on so many elements of his game and his mental make-up plus handle heavy defeats in slams before cracking it. Like Danny says in large circles he was regarded as a bigot but has won a lot of people over. That takes some doing and the obstacles he has overcome have not been in the way of Roger, Rafa or Novak. I liken it to him being a Grand National winner who survived being almost brought down at Becher's Brook but came through to win whereas the rest never had that problem.

One thing not mentioned is when did his patents separate? I have often though Andy behaved too much like a Mummy's boy, someone who'd lacked a firm hand from a father whose respect he yearned. Fathers are funny things, they/we can simultaneously be the person a boy resents, admires and hopes to emulate.

What I'm leading to is speculating whether the real change in Andy Murray is that he now has, in his day to day life, an older man who he respects, would like to emulate, and fears disappointing.

I wouldn't say a mummy's boy as he was the one who pressed to be allowed to move (alone) to Spain to train at the tennis academy. Mummy's boys (as far as I am aware) have traits where they will cling to their mother no matter what. Also the other day (if a mother's boy) would he almost have forgotten her in the royal box? Very unlikely.

As to your final point I think that is over-analysing it a bit as his father is still evidently close to him. I just feel that a lot has now fallen into place for Andy. Under Lendl his temperament has improved, he has discovered the winning mentality in crunch matches and with it gained a lot of self-belief. In short he is a lot more at ease with himself.

My own father for the past years said Murray was missing a father figure!

Hmm no I say not. His dad has been around and would put the final breakthrough down to Lendl becoming his coach and changing/tweaking a few things both technically and mentally that aided Andy to find that winning mentality and inner self-belief came with that with the Olympics win.

I think what has helped Murray's success is decision making off the court. Getting the right coaches on board at the right time certainly has helped him progress albeit at a slow pace. That's why I hope Edmund can breakthrough given that he has the right set-up off court.

Andy had the right game to begin with which was retrieval and returning. I recall his match with Stepanek in 2005 and saying to a friend that he has the tools to progress and be successful. I admit I didn't think he would win the Slams he has, but that is even better.

I hope his legacy isn't just reflected in achievements, but that his success results in an increase in participation for kids and that the LTA can run a successful development programme on the back of it.

The "authority figure" for Andy is an interesting component in his success.

Pre-Lendl, I always felt Murray didn't really respect his coaching team. Not in the sense that he disrespected them, more in the sense that it was he was the one with the talent, he was the leader and they were kind of lucky to be working with him. He didn't really think twice about moaning at them, even on court.

In Lendl though, we have a figure of equal if not greater talent, greater success, who absolutely won't stand for any nonsense because he doesn't need to be on Murray's team for his professional standing.

When he talks, Andy listens.

Great OP. Happy to see Andy finally take his home GS. I know he's been a lazy, undisciplined player and spoiled little kid, but he's become a decent professional now, controlling himself and his anger more and has finally found a recipe to kick Djoko in the nuts.

I'm hoping he can get at least a GS every year in next 2-3 years.

No I think Andy has tapped on about Lendl before. He can associate with Lendl as their careers mirrored each others in so many ways so there was an apathy/an understanding there of what each was thinking and feeling. That is the key plus Lendl is an all-time great of the sport and commands respect. Brad Gilbert probably never commanded that same respect as he never even reached a slam semi in his career so did he have that winning psyche that Andy respected and craved? I would say not as Gilbert could hardly instil confidence (if you will) as his career never hit the mark himself in his career. I mean can you picture it? Andy asking Gilbert: 'So what is it going to take to win a slam?' Gilbert: 'Errr....emm.' I also feel both had fiery tempers so there was a clash of personalities and that is counter-productive. Elsewhere, Gilbert will probably be an ideal coach but with Murray it was not the right mix.

Sorry Jahu but 'lazy' and 'undiscipliced' sorry but no. He is renowned as one of the hardest working pros (hardly lazy that) on the tour and who has constantly striven for ways to improve since he was entering early teens so that is far from undisciplined. As for spoilt I see where you get that from via tantrums on court but really that is because he is fiercely driven to win and is very self-critical and when he hits a poor shot that manifests itself in a tantrum.

I've never seen such hype to be frank.  He was exceedingly lucky to have the draw he did, and everyone is running about like 2 slams at 26 is a monumental achievement that requires we bow down.  I can never accept his style of play in the same way as attacking tennis, because it is so 1 dimensional and limited.  As he gets older, he will be smacked all over the court and look ridiculous.  It isn't what you win, it is how you win it.  Murray is a pusher and counter attacker.  He's very good at it, but it simply isn't on the same level as any of the truly great tennis players.  I'm sorry.  Nobody apart from his die hard fans are going to be repeating his matches in 20 years time... he's just going to fall by the wayside.  And I am sorry if my opinion doesn't gel with what I am expected to believe, I know differing arguments and beliefs are a crime on this forum.

Also, I didn't see any evidence that his temper or composure was any better than before. When he is behind he shouts, screams and bawls. Just like he always has.

HM Murdoch wrote:The "authority figure" for Andy is an interesting component in his success.

Pre-Lendl, I always felt Murray didn't really respect his coaching team. Not in the sense that he disrespected them, more in the sense that it was he was the one with the talent, he was the leader and they were kind of lucky to be working with him. He didn't really think twice about moaning at them, even on court.

In Lendl though, we have a figure of equal if not greater talent, greater success, who absolutely won't stand for any nonsense because he doesn't need to be on Murray's team for his professional standing.

When he talks, Andy listens.

Interesting comment - I think it slightly down-plays Brad Gilbert's role in developing the young Murray from a potential star to a serious challenger, and I think at that time Gilbert was the right man for the job. Taught Andy how to win without playing particularly well. I can though understand why the relationship broke down fairly quickly, as they can both be quite abrasive characters (at least around the court) and I don't think Gilbert could have taken Andy to the level that Lendl has now - I agree that there's serious respect from Andy for Lendl, and that Ivan has a unique knowledge store regarding turning round initial disappointments to an ultimately very successful career.

What I find impressive about Murray is that he had the maturity to know and accept that he needed a coach who could tell him to f**k off and he'd have to listen.  All his petulance with his box before that had suggested that he was bad at being told home truths - but he seems to have acquired the self-knowledge that he needed to be told home truths by someone he would not be tempted to bawl out.
 
So, for me, the single most interesting thing is what lead to his choice of Lendl as a coach, the final piece in the jigsaw.
 
The other stuff about his unique background seems a bit sepia-tinted to me.  Federer's coach died when he was at a pretty important age, Djoko grew up in a pariah state coming to terms with a grisly and murderously nationalistic recent past, Nadal kept his drive going through a life of middle-class comfort and after being told he has a congenital foot problem which has meant that since 2005 he's wondered how long he can keep going.  Every true champion has a back story of interest, Murray is no different in that respect - I'd hesitate to dwell on the fact that he has faced unique challenges when that's true of everyone; altogether now, "we are all unique".

The other stuff about his unique background seems a bit sepia-tinted to me.

I dunno. See him talking about the Dunblane tragedy put into context how he was able to deal with such a traumatic experience and also the one ligament ankle he has. I am not saying that has had made him the player he is, but certainly helped in him becoming the person he is.

I agree with what you said about Lendl. No more can he look at his box and let off an anglo-saxon tirade without Lendl probably knocking the 10 bells of s*** out of him!

I did say earlier all players have challenges but the point is not the amount Murray has had to get to the top.

Multiple slam final defeats to get over before winning his first (unlike Federer, Nadal or Djokovic)

Ultra-negative media press to overcome including being branded a bigot (unlike Federer, Nadal and Djokovic)

Extreme media and public pressure about is he/can he win a slam then can he win Wimbledon (unlike Federer, Nadal and Djokovic)

Not forgetting the Dunblane massacre (only Djokovic had to live through terrors at a young age with the war in Serbia)

Yes Nadal has had injury stresses as has Murray who was born with bi-partite patella (knee bone not correctly formed at birth) and Roger had his coach die but at the end of the day those are not multiple hurdles like Andy has had to overcome.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

The other stuff about his unique background seems a bit sepia-tinted to me.

I dunno. See him talking about the Dunblane tragedy put into context how he was able to deal with such a traumatic experience and also the one ligament ankle he has. I am not saying that has had made him the player he is, but certainly helped in him becoming the person he is.

 
Of course it did - and anyone who wants to understand the man needs to know about his background.  I was cavilling at the suggestion that it  makes him "unique" in the sense obviously intended of someone who has overcome particular hurdles to get to where he is, i.e. "amazing how someone who was at that school that day can be Wimbledon Champion."  
 
Dunblane is a hideously unusual thing to have happened to anyone, thank God, so it stands out for us, but by the time someone is 26 the person they are is made up of such a patchwork of different events and processes and experiences that I think it wrong to concentrate on even an event like that and claim that it makes the survivor "unique" 20 or so years later on.
 

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

The other stuff about his unique background seems a bit sepia-tinted to me.

I dunno. See him talking about the Dunblane tragedy put into context how he was able to deal with such a traumatic experience and also the one ligament ankle he has. I am not saying that has had made him the player he is, but certainly helped in him becoming the person he is.

Of course it did - and anyone who wants to understand the man needs to know about his background.  I was cavilling at the suggestion that it  makes him "unique" in the sense obviously intended of someone who has overcome particular hurdles to get to where he is, i.e. "amazing how someone who was at that school that day can be Wimbledon Champion."  

Dunblane is a hideously unusual thing to have happened to anyone, thank God, so it stands out for us, but by the time someone is 26 the person they are is made up of such a patchwork of different events and processes and experiences that I think it wrong to concentrate on even an event like that and claim that it makes the survivor "unique" 20 or so years later on.

The point is disasters affect people in various ways. Did you watch the documentary about 'Piper Alpha Disaster' last night? It showed so many survivors still live in the shadow of that disaster and many of them can never forget. It is mental baggage to carry that certainly Federer and Nadal have never had to carry.....thank god. That is a fact.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

The other stuff about his unique background seems a bit sepia-tinted to me.

I dunno. See him talking about the Dunblane tragedy put into context how he was able to deal with such a traumatic experience and also the one ligament ankle he has. I am not saying that has had made him the player he is, but certainly helped in him becoming the person he is.

Of course it did - and anyone who wants to understand the man needs to know about his background.  I was cavilling at the suggestion that it  makes him "unique" in the sense obviously intended of someone who has overcome particular hurdles to get to where he is, i.e. "amazing how someone who was at that school that day can be Wimbledon Champion."  

Dunblane is a hideously unusual thing to have happened to anyone, thank God, so it stands out for us, but by the time someone is 26 the person they are is made up of such a patchwork of different events and processes and experiences that I think it wrong to concentrate on even an event like that and claim that it makes the survivor "unique" 20 or so years later on.

I do agree. We are all unique as you correctly pointed out.

I agree it doesn't make him unique later on in life, though the examples you gave were all solid. I remember Federer in 2003 being emotional and touching on his late coach. Quite sombre it has to be said.

@CC - I agree that Murray has had a long old struggle since he joined the tour - he was unlucky to face who he did in his first 4 slam finals, just like Lendl, and the pressure on a Brit to win Wimbledon is pretty "unique" (there - that word!) but I wonder if the main reason for your post is that you know more about Murray's struggles than the others both as a matter of pure facts and because you are a Brit like him so that you are better placed to empathise with what you understand? If you were a Swiss who knew about Federer you might have an insight into his "unique" struggles that currently you lack.

Barry I am sure there are enough fans of Roger who know enough about his past and background as it is well-documented. If he had anything like childhood disasters, media tagging him a bigot, losing slams with heavy defeats before winning a slam and huge public/media pressure I am 100% certain we would hear of it here. That is, in my firm belief, because he hasn't had them. Don't worry I still say Roger Federer is the greatest player of all-time and Rafa the greatest clay courter of all-time but their road map to glory was one that took them on a much more flatter route where Andy had mountains to scale.

but their road map to glory was one that took them on a much more flatter route where Andy had mountains to scale.

Not sure I go along with that CC. Federer had a tag on him the moment he defeated Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001. Nadal won his first Slam at 18. I think it is much more difficult to win and keep on winning than it is to lose and then start to win. Roger and Rafa had a global expectation whereas Andy's has been rather national expectation than global.

Success doesn't come easy to anyone - some make it look easier than others. One thing that is easy is to look at some headline events and say that they make whoever has struggled through them "unique" compared to others who have faced different lives.

We are obviously going to agree to differ - I think Murray is a thoroughly estimable guy and I think he is set to get the recognition he deserves and, hopefully, to grow wings (metaphorically speaking) after achieving the holy grail of ending Fred Perry's reign as the last British winner of Wimbledon. I agree that he has had his struggles. Not knowing enough about Fed, Nadal, or others (just like you, I venture to suggest), I think it's wrong to suggest that Murray's battle to success is of a unique type.

It's not about who is the greatest, that's a different debate, its about being careful not to use the word "unique" when you don't know enough to justify it's use because you have closed down the debate by deciding for yourself what "unique" means without investigating the alternatives because you aren't aware of any similar "headline" style events in the lives of other players.

I find it interesting that Lendl once described his relationship with Andy as that of an 'older brother.' When you think about Murray's back story and his character beyond the clichés, you can see why it is working.

As Bogbrush enquired in an earlier post, his parents split when he was 9 - with Judy leaving the family home. She obviously was still around in his life; but his father says he was not an easy child to deal with.

barrystar wrote:Success doesn't come easy to anyone - some make it look easier than others.  One thing that is easy is to look at some headline events and say that they make whoever has struggled through them "unique" compared to others who have faced different lives.

We are obviously going to agree to differ - I think Murray is a thoroughly estimable guy and I think he is set to get the recognition he deserves and, hopefully, to grow wings (metaphorically speaking) after achieving the holy grail of ending Fred Perry's reign as the last British winner of Wimbledon.  I agree that he has had his struggles.  Not knowing enough about Fed, Nadal, or others (just like you, I venture to suggest), I think it's wrong to suggest that Murray's battle to success is of a unique type.

It's not about who is the greatest, that's a different debate, its about being careful not to use the word "unique" when you don't know enough to justify it's use because you have closed down the debate by deciding for yourself what "unique" means without investigating the alternatives because you aren't aware of any similar "headline" style events in the lives of other players.

If Roger or Rafa fans wish they can post up the big problems/barriers that have stood in their way prior to reaching glory. Each player has their own story to tell, their own route to glory and yes it is all unique is it not? I will leave it at that and we will agree to disagree on this subject.  

I stand by the phrase 'Mummys boy' as a broad label to describe what I saw. Him pushing to go toSpain doesn't change that, they can be determined.
What he seemed to lack was anyone telling him 'that's enough of that', hence he would whine and moan on court -he still has that in him. The big giveaway was the constant reaching to hurts and pains which turn out to be nothing.

Such a guy doesn't need to do anything in terms of behaviour to earn the devotion of their parent, Mums are nearly always unqualified in that respect.

I just thought on Sunday that perhaps he now has someone who will tell him how he was disappointed in him if he'd not run for all those drop shots, not someone who'd console him, or others who'd tell him he did great. And maybe he wants that persons respect.

Well that is you opinion. However, I do not need to be a pyschologist to analyse that the first thing 'a mummy's boy' would have done was hunted out his mother in the crowd on Sunday. Heck he almost missed her out altogether. And no his own court demeanour is nothing to do with being spoilt it is the perfectionist in him. His rants are when he misses shots he banks himself to get all the time and that rankles with him and has nothing to do with getting his own way more of demanding more from himself - even that is touched on by his family in the excellent 'The Man Behind The Racquet' documentary.

Actually the first thing one would do is ignore her because he doesn't have to pander to her. I'm not citing that as proof of what happened but you're misunderstanding the phrase. Maybe he forgot her, but who did he hug first of anyone?

Everyone gets upset when things don't work out. It's not perfectionism that makes people rant, it's indiscipline and looking for excuses to fail. I don't think he had anyone whose approval he wanted which was highly conditional until Lendl came along. What's the first thing he said? "‘He’s told me that he’s proud of me after this and that means a lot, coming from him".

Mums will always accept and console their sons. Coaches on the edge of being fired will either back off or get fired. Lendl isn't in those brackets, Murray knows he won't take any crap whatsoever, on or off the court. He's surrogate Dad.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

If Roger or Rafa fans wish they can post up the big problems/barriers that have stood in their way prior to reaching glory. Each player has their own story to tell, their own route to glory and yes it is all unique is it not? 

 
It's not a fan thing, it's about whether your use of the word "unique" is justified - you choose to say 'it's unique because I say it is on my knowledge of one player and anyone who disagrees had better provide the evidence about other players'.  My point was that this is the wrong way to go about it, but as you acknowledge we don't agree.

Interesting article Craig, and as with many others, I'm so pleased for him that he has been able to overcome all this and acheive the success he has.

I totally agree with others that that is unnecessary to try to compare the challenges he has faced to those of other players - it's shouldn't be a case of whether he had bigger challenges than others, but simply whether he faced all the adversity in his life & career and overcame it through determination, which he undoubtedly did.

I think the separation of his parents probably was a bigger thing for him personally than the school tragedy. You say the rants were down to being a perfectionist, but nevertheless I feel he needed someone (a parent) to tell him firmly very early on that it was completely unaccceptable, but I get the impression neither did.

The other thing that I dislike seeing brought up again and again is this thing about the football comment. Yeah, a portion of the press thought it would make an interesting story and stitched him up a bit but that's not the same as branding him a bigot. I don't suport the English football team and I can say that without declaring myself a bigot.

Lots of people don't like him (and some hate him) because they think he's dour or boring or behaves like a brat, or because of that football remark or whatever and I observe that this upsets you a little. But, do you know what - at the moment, Murray is basking in praise of people whose opinion matters to him like ex-pros and fellow sportsmen and I doubt he gives a damn what a few vocal people on sports forums or media comments sections think, so why should you?

Good post Yvonne. As for the bigot thing it was headlined in papers at the time with words like 'You bigot'. I do take on board everything else you say though Yvonne.  

Yvonne

One thing that the football comment and media stitch up did do with Andy was make him much more wary of the press. This has made him appear dour and boring, even though those who know him well say that he is anything but (and the documentary certainly seems to corroborate that) - it's a sad situation that we (as fans) complain about getting dull, PR-approved answers from players but then when there is someone who could have been an interesting personality the media jump on a throw-away comment and villify him.

The interesting thing about Andy's links to the Dunblane shooting is just how personal it was - he was in the school, and was even timetabled to be in the gym as the next class, and the family knew Hamilton reasonably well.

Obviously we don't know how much Djokovic and his family were affected by the Yugoslav civil war, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that, while it was more significant as a big picture event, it didn't affect them in quite the same personal way.

Hi Craig,

I'm with Barrystar on this one. Although everyones rise to success is inherently unique, we as British citizens are bound to know more about Murray's issues than other players you mention. This was my first thought when reading this article, which is to tbf, quite a good one I think. But I don't think his route to success has been any harder or easier than anyones elses tbh. I think that's the issue. The ascertion his has been harder. I can't buy that because I don't know enough about everyone else. And I'm not sure you do either.

For example, I watched that documentary and he gets emotional when thinking about it. Rightly so. However as a kid, at that time, it may have had little bearing on him emotionally. Certainly in a way that may have hindered his development. Simply because he may not have appreicated fully what was going on. He may not have been emotionally mature enough to know how to react in an adult way which he does now. I look back on moments in my own life now, certainly with more emotion now than when they happened when I was younger. I think this is the same for everyone. Judy didn't seem to go into much detail when talking about his behaviour immediately afterwards, just that he asked 'why'.

We're not really saying that some rag calling him this God knows how long ago actually matters? Jeez, politicians get a hundred times worse every day and handle it. He'd have been told by everyone he knows to forget it, it's just chip paper.

Yikes, I just complimented a politician!!!!!

From what I can gather, this Craig guy is the ultimate Murray fanboy :P?

_homogenised_ wrote:From what I can gather, this Craig guy is the ultimate Murray fanboy :P?

From what I gather you are an ultimate WUM. I tell you what look back through my posting history here. If you do you will see I have equally criticised elements of his play following losses and offered opinions on what he needs to do to improve. Pre-tournament predictions are never full of me boasting of Murray wins or for that matter making excuses following Murray defeats and am always ready to courteously congratulate other players and their fans even if their player has beaten Murray in a final. That disqualifies me from that title I do believe.

Now back to the topic in hand......

Andy Murray has had an enormous amount of pressure from an over excitable British press and he came through brilliantly in the end.  I agree with you Craig that the Dunblane tragedy marked his early life, but it is very easy to single out someone with god given talent for 'heroism' in going on to live their lives - I think that heroism is also demonstrated by his sibling, his parents, grandparents and the community of Dunblane who have gone on to live their lives in perhaps a less celebrated, but still no less courageous way.

It is off the point of this article a bit, but can I just say well done Novak Djokovic - I have never heard such a gracious runner-up speech, nor seen such a good runner-up's face, at all times - chin up, square shoulders and warmth in the eyes.  Djokovic had to dodge bullets on his way to practice as a child on more than one occasion, and while I may not like the shirt ripping in triumph, by god he takes his disappointments like a man - like someone who has a good sense of proportion.

Anyway, 3 days later it still feels wonderful that AM finally came through at Wimbledon - very pleased for him.

time please wrote:Andy Murray has had an enormous amount of pressure from an over excitable British press and he came through brilliantly in the end.  I agree with you Craig that the Dunblane tragedy marked his early life, but it is very easy to single out someone win god given talent for 'heroism' in going on to live their lives - I think that heroism is also demonstrated by his sibling, his parents, grandparents and the community of Dunblane who have gone on to live their lives in perhaps a less celebrated, but still no less courageous way.

It is off the point of this article a bit, but can I just say well done Novak Djokovic - I have never heard such a gracious runner-up speech, nor seen such a good runner-up's face, at all times - chin up, square shoulders and warmth in the eyes.  Djokovic had to dodge bullets on his way to practice as a child on more than one occasion, and while I may not like the shirt ripping in triumph, by god he takes his disappointments like a man - like someone who has a good proportion of things.

Anyway, 3 days later it still feels wonderful that AM finally came through at Wimbledon - very pleased for him.

Novak deserves great credit. He always loses with grace and wins with the grace and that is always great to see. As his stature in the sport has grown so has my admiration for him.

bogbrush wrote:One thing not mentioned is when did his patents separate? I have often though Andy behaved too much like a Mummy's boy, someone who'd lacked a firm hand from a father whose respect he yearned. Fathers are funny things, they/we can simultaneously be the person a boy resents, admires and hopes to emulate.

What I'm leading to is speculating whether the real change in Andy Murray is that he now has, in his day to day life, an older man who he respects, would like to emulate, and fears disappointing.

I think Andy and Jamie lived with their father after the divorce. It was Judy that moved out although only a couple of streets away.

I think Bogbrush has a point in a way. Murray's team did always lack an authority figure, with the exception of Gilbert maybe.

Lendl is the first person he's hired who can actually say "I know better" and lets face it, he's the guy that has overseen the evolvement of the forehand into a weapon, the better attitude and the biggest change for me... The aggression on the second shot after serve.

A lot of Murray fans thought the ability was there to be a multi slam winner, and a few non Murray fans to be fair, but Lendl is the one who has steered him in the right direction. Credit to Andy though, as Lendl has said bringing him in would be both high profile and an admission that he needed that help... But he didn't shy away from it.

Murray has spoken many times about why he chose Ivan Lendl and the key thing is......respect.

He respected Lendl's tennis career record and realised the similarities between them as in both losing all of their early slam finals. Lendl turned it around of course and won multiple slams and so Murray realised he had advice to die for and as he had been to the same places mentally that Andy had been (losing slams) he felt he was the perfect choice. It also helped a great deal that both have a dry sense of humour which helps them get on so well.

Whereas Gilbert had other qualities perhaps his advice fell on death ears as Gilbert had never really made it big (slam-wise in his career)so could he offer any useful advice on Murray's predicament? In any case the pair had a volatile relationship and never beared the fruit that it hoped it would so to speak.

Don't lose sight of the fact that many top players have ripped through coaches on a regular basis, its not just Murray. Finding the right mix has nothing to do with them being an authorative figure, thats rubbish, he needed someone he could rely on and trust to give him the right direction and take his game to a higher level.

It didnt work out until he got Lendl, but that would never have happened had he not gone through the process of hiring and firing a few before then.

Coaching a top 100 player is not the same as a top ten player, a completely different ball game and you can not waste precious years sticking with a choice that doesnt realise results. You have to change to find the right person for the job, and Murray found that with Lendl.

I know a few people who didnt grow up with a father figure, either through divorce or death or job restrictions, they are not Mummys boys or spoilt or brats, in fact they are particularly well balanced individuals and strong willed too. They miss him, thats for sure, but they just get on with their lives as best they can, its a fact they live with and often find themselves wishing it were different and they had the memories that many of us take for granted. But as far as I know, its not something that they bring up in conversation or take it as being deficient in some way that they never had a father around to share experiences with.

Murray was a consummate perfectionist, seeking perfection at a cost to his own temperament, yes, he was a typical teenager acting up when he couldnt get his own way, who of us hasn't done that ? the fact that it was made public, like so many young men who take up tennis, on the tennis court is no reason to suspect its because he "grew" up with his mother on tour in the early days.

Most of what I have read in this article is either respect for his achievements or speculation about reasons for his past attitude. None of the latter is relevant to the Murray we now know, he's won Wimbledon, without the previous he is renowned for and is far better at handling the press. He's not a spoilt brat anymore even though his mum is still very much in his limelight on a regular basis, so lets just enjoy his tennis from now on, without the hyperbole or the circumspective criticism regarding his past lives.

JubbaIsle - my comment was not a criticism of Murray, and I don't agree about the Mummy's boy stuff.... My point is that coaches like Petchy and Gilbert have stated that they tried to get Murray to be a bit more on the front foot and he was reticent to do it. Understandably in a way as his old approach got him to top 4 and beating most of the tour.

My point about authority is that everyone who has coached him, or certainly a couple of them that I've read about, tried to get him on the front foot and he didn't.

His first meeting with Lendl was based around the question of "how do I beat the top 3?" And in one of the few things Lendl has admitted about the tactical approach he said that he can't just stay behind the baseline, he has to make them run. He has to put them on the back foot by being on the baseline more often.

That's nothing new, Petchy has said he tried to get him playing that way years ago... But now it was coming from an 8 time slam winner. And straight away there was a difference. His first big slam match against one of those guys post Lendl he took the game to Djokovic and came up fractions short. My point being that Lendl, because of what he has achieved, had the authority to convince Murray it was the right thing to do.

I reiterate, I think all of this is huge credit to Murray. He has no bigger fan than me and I would never view any of the above - which is of course, my opinion - as a negative.

lets just enjoy his tennis from now on, without the hyperbole or the circumspective criticism regarding his past lives

Is he the new Dr Who?

I think Murray has a rich seam of extra capacity he has yet to mine.

Consider some highlights from what is in my view still his greatest performance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INUnajp6e8c

This remember was against a Nadal who had just won the French and Wimbledon double and had a maiden hard slam win at the 2009 Australian forthcoming. Essentially Murray stopped Nadal from completing a 'Rafa slam' - a rarely mooted point.

Considering the points above we see a lucid and aggressive Murray playing all court tennis with aplomb, free from the tacit stresses and strains of later losses (the first, and wost, of which was to happen only a day later against Federer). At 8 mins 35 we see Murray had hit 58 winners in 3 and a half sets! His performance included numerous well struck down the line forehands, neatly timed net approaches and controlled pro-activity on big points.

If Murray starts to play this loose in the big games he could start to win really big. My only concern is that this opportunity has been unlocked a year or two too late. We saw in the semi final one of Andy's soon to become regular matches where he plays the role of "hunted" rather than "hunter". Del Po, Janowicz and Raonic are younger, taller and can crush the ball to such an extent that a comparatively aged Murray may not be able to cope.

It's a shame Murray didn't get a couple more slams under his belt while these boys were further down the ladder.