The Murray Aftermath

Andy Murray today contemplates the loss of his US Open crown amidst a heavy defeat against an on-fire Stan Wawrinka. For some reason he looked the shell of the player of the last year or so but why am I hearing/reading such negative crap in the media and such-like?

Lets look at a few facts here in that Stan was in the form of his life (his words)going into the match and it showed whilst Murray clearly was below par hence the heavy defeat. However, the media and others are calling Murray into question which I find ridiculous. Lets just remember that at Wimbledon we have seen Rafa have far worse results at earlier stages against Lukas Rosol and Steve Darcis (both ranked 100+) whilst Stan is ranked in the top ten in the world. Roger Federer himself was mugged by Stakhovsky at a far earlier stage at Wimbledon as well. What makes the flak even more ridiculous is that Andy had reached the last four slam finals he had played in winning two and is on a run of reaching eleven quarter-finals at slams in succession (barring French Open where he was injured) and the last time Andy exited earlier than the 3rd Round at a slam was the 2008 Australian Open when he lost to eventual finalist Jo Tsonga in the 1st Round. Impressive stats in anyones eyes.

As for the aftermath and where Andy goes from here well he must address how he approaches matches against hard-hitters. Also I wish he'd cut out this tosh and talk of peaking for slams and get back to basics and being ultra-competitive in every tournament he enters. Ranking points ARE important Andy as you may have had an easier route in the US Open if you had kept your No.2 ranking prior to the US Open. Anyway hopefully he can get back to winning ways at tournaments between now and the end of the season and reassert himself.

PS If you wish to offer constructive criticism then that is fine but if you are on the wind-up please do me a favour and others looking for sensible conversation and take your remarks to another thread.

The media always view things 'black and white', simply because it covers up for a lack of knowledge, i.e. lazy journalism

After all he got beat by a total no-hoper

I disagree with you about his approach to hard hitters. I still think he'd have beaten Berdych last night, simply because the Czech has no variation, compared to the others. It was the hard hitting with variety, something that very few players can do, which cooked his goose

I know we can argue that he's now had defeats to Del Potro and Berdych this year - but he's beaten plenty of other hard hitters this year

I actually see it as a constructive wake up call. Then last thing we wanted was another plucky final defeat, best he goes out now with renewed motivation to answer the old doubters who have resurfaced

Fact is he'll still be one of the favourites at Aus and probably the firm favourite at Wimbledon

Davis Cup will help as well, but trust he will perhaps only compete in the Master and just one other event before O2

banbro if you look to Andy's famous defeats at slams out-with the top players they have tended to be against big hitters such as Berdych, Roddick, Cilic, Wawrinka (twice), Gonzalez and Tsonga. That is too coincedental for me.

As I said as well he needs to cut out this nonsense about peaking for slams and take each match as it comes. Winning Masters events not only boosts ranking points but also boosts confidence. He can't claim or attempt to switch off at non-slams and think he can just switch on again.

And he's beaten all these, apart from Gonzo, at Slams

There's just a danger of doing an Oliver Brown (see attached) and viewing his defeats harsher than we would the others

Didn't Rafa depart Wimbledon rather early for the last two years, but he doesn't get the same 'doom and gloom'

Andy will lose to hard hitters (not certain if Roddick is one) if he's slightly off the boil. Wawrinka would have beaten any of today's players last night, but not as easily

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/10291337/Andy-Murrays-exit-from-the-US-Open-in-quarter-final-showed-that-Scot-still-is-not-genuine-article-as-champion.html

Ive said this a few times now (and most of the time I was given the "you dont know what youre talking about" rhetoric), but form isnt a switch you can turn on and off. Andy played what, six matches post-Wimbledon? Lost twice, neither were particularly uplifting losses, and yet everyone was quite sure Murray was a favourite for the title.. Of course its all relative, Murray still made Quarter-Finals in a Slam, and he lost to a player who is red-hot. He has won two of his last four Slams, an Olympic Gold, and is still the #3 player in the world. So its not all a train smash. But critically analyzing the match... Andy was undercooked. He couldnt get a good look in at a guy who was serving at 55%, was largely the second banana in rallies. A lot of that was Wawrinka just bossing him, but some of it was just a player lacking the fine tuning that mileage gives you. excluding the grass court season, his record post-Miami is what 2-3 on Clay, and I think 7-3 on hard, so combined he is like 9-6, maybe 10-6 outside of grass. Nadal is around 36-1 post-Miami (excluding grass) Djokovic, despite not being in the greatest form, is 23-5. Theres a reason they are handing out bagels while Murray had largely laboured through.

Oh yes I agree largely with you banbro but he should work on ways to combat the big-hitters better is what I am saying.

I suppose that newspaper article (and others) are typical of the media in this country - build someone up to knock them down at the first opportunity. Andy will bounce back of that I am sure.

Very good post kingraf and largely agree with that. He needs to get his focus back on the Masters matches and good form in those will have him at his peak naturally for slams. He can't just switch off and switch on like a TV set.

 

kingraf wrote:Ive said this a few times now (and most of the time I was given the "you dont know what youre talking about" rhetoric), but form isnt a switch you can turn on and off. Andy played what, six matches post-Wimbledon? Lost twice, neither were particularly uplifting losses, and yet everyone was quite sure Murray was a favourite for the title.. Of course its all relative, Murray still made Quarter-Finals in a Slam, and he lost to a player who is red-hot. He has won two of his last four Slams, an Olympic Gold, and is still the #3 player in the world. So its not all a train smash. But critically analyzing the match... Andy was undercooked. He couldnt get a good look in at a guy who was serving at 55%, was largely the second banana in rallies. A lot of that was Wawrinka just bossing him, but some of it was just a player lacking the fine tuning that mileage gives you. excluding the grass court season, his record post-Miami is what 2-3 on Clay, and I think 7-3 on hard, so combined he is like 9-6, maybe 10-6 outside of grass. Nadal is around 36-1 post-Miami (excluding grass) Djokovic, despite not being in the greatest form, is 23-5.  Theres a reason they are handing out bagels while Murray had largely laboured through.

Top post

I'm still worried about the back personally and I wonder if that's the reason for the bizarre approach to the season. He rarely seems to unload on the backhand anymore - most matches I see he seems to be dragging it into the net. That would be consistent with a fairly constant stiffness. I guess we'll just see how things develop.

Rather than the typical knee-jerk reaction of the media in the aftermath, this article with the thoughts of Cahill and McEnroe, provides some more constructive food for thought: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/sep/06/andy-murray-us-open-exit#start-of-comments

Well whatever come will come. He might bounce straight back at the aussie open or earlier, or maybe his back will dog him from now one and maybe his 2 slams will be the lot. You should always look at what you have, not you you might get later. Hes got 2 slams, one of them wimbledon. No matter how much people try to retroactively dismiss them or take them away, theyre his forever, and theyll alone make him a british sporting legend and seal his place in tennis history

Soo you know... whatever, hell do his best, hes come through a lot, certainyl a lot more than this

Definitely falzy.

I said it before and I will say it again - he could retire tomorrow and he could be mightily proud of his career and nothing he does/doesn't do from now on will change that.

Stan is a player who could take anyone out on top form, Murray doesn't need to change anything dramatically, he's had a marvelous year. If the media have been suckered into criticising him due to being fed 3-slam years or whatever else in the last decade, then that reflects badly on them. Any year like Andy's is worthy of celebration, not condemnation.

You seem a bit defensive about this though, Craig? Don't let the occasionally idiotic media get to you, mate. Murray's doing fine

Not defensive Silver - more like wanting to put a few things (and people) straight. If Murray loses before finals etc he gets slated yet on winning slams you get 'Oh it was a tornado' and 'Oh Djokovic played rubbish'. Hardly fair so I just look to redress the balance.

I watched some of the Murray/Wawrinka match.

Murray needs to work on his serve. His first serve is inconsistent and his second serve is weak. Rolling a second serve in at 70 odd miles an hour to the middle of the box is asking for trouble. Wawrinka exposed this weakness. He could do with a little more power in his ground strokes too as they looked a little weak compared to Wawrinka's. He is very reluctant to play DTL off both wings but particularly on the forehand. Not sure if that's a tactilcal or a technical problem but it is something that could be improved.

IMO he should address his body language and audible ranting at himself when things go wrong. I was watching Wawrinka's reaction to Murray's behavior and he was watching Murray's frustration. No doubt drawing inspiration from the effect that his play was having on his opponent and feeding on it. I even caught a few half smiles. Murray should develop a poker face.

I agree Murray should stop talking tosh about peaking for slams. Because it is just that "tosh". Slams are usually won by players who are playing well and it is difficult to suddenly start playing well after playing poorly in other events.

As for the press. The British media should try to be objective when talking about British players including Murray. Concocting fairy tails does no one any favors. Although I do understand that some people do enjoy fairy tales so I can understand the temptation.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Not defensive Silver - more like wanting to put a few things (and people) straight. If Murray loses before finals etc he gets slated yet on winning slams you get 'Oh it was a tornado' and 'Oh Djokovic played rubbish'. Hardly fair so I just look to redress the balance.

Heh, this is true. Hopefully he'll rack up a few more slams yet, and put the doubters in the shade. He's an excellent player and has been for some time.

kingraf wrote:excluding the grass court season

Good post but that exclusion of grass in your comparisons was rather cheeky

I don't worry much about it. Tennis is a sport where you can just look awful on your best day and lose to terrible players and on your best day beat someone you have no business beating, it is the nature of the sport. Wawrinka played the kind of match that could knock out anyone and he had just taken out another top player in Berdych. These guys are not robots they go through periods where they just get frustrated easier and don't seem to feel the ball quite as well on the strings. What was a little disconcerting was how easily wawrinka held for the whole match and how murray was whitewashed so totally without much of comeback. But for me I don't doubt Murray for a second as a result of this loss. One thing is clear though that of the top 3 players of the current game Murray is more susceptible to a lower ranked guy in an upset. Djokovic, especially over 5 sets just has not lost to anyone outside the top 4 since wimbeldon of 2010, Nadal also seems to crush everyone he is supposed to, at least this new hardcourt monster version of him. This trend is something Murray will have to deal with because it is not a blip in form, this is how he has played on the tour for years now. And I think again it goes back to him being to comfortable and too passively when pressed at times. The one problem with being a counter puncher in mentality is that you have to wait for the other guy to punch and sometimes you get caught.

Summer - I wasnt trying to be cheeky. Its just that including the grass season muddies the waters, and imo hides problems which are there with the 'Oh, but he won Wimbledon' rhetoric. The grass season is a little like bottling thunder. Its so short I dont think points about form are relevant. After all, Verdasco's season reads like a train smash, and he was a few games away from taking Murray out...

I think the problem when critiquing Murray comes because he is playing alongside two guys who are in a Slam race for the GOAT title, and a player who is a great in his own right. It draws unfair comparisons on his career, almost making it appear like he is failing because he hasnt matched their exploits. You put him alongside Nadal, its never going to look good. But, at this very moment in time, only five players on tour know what its like to have a Slam, and he is one of them. Given Britain's (relative) lack of success where even the u/21s get talked up when they qualify for something, I actually cant understand the almost myopic view taken on Murray.

I agree with KR. Murray was clearly number 1 on grass this year and, of course, winning Wimbledon means that its been a wonderful season. However, for the purposes of this assessment I think it's better to ignore it. It's the hard courts, which should be Murray's bread and butter, which are the cause for concern.

His performance against Federer in Australia was immense. The serve was brutal and the ground strokes had immense pop. He also moved forwards with ease.

However, since then he has come nowhere near that level and has played poorly in more or less every big hard court match - Del Potro in IW, Ferrer in Miami (although the heat was oppressive), Berdych in Cinci and Stan here. In each of them, his first serve has lacked any real pop - this is a guy with capability to serve 140+, his ground strokes have been erratic, the backhand in particular has lacked the firepower of old and he hasn't really looked to have a strategy.

What's worse is that in each of them (even v DP) the opponent has had more variety! In seemingly removing all the genius from his game, Andy has made himself far easier to play against. He should be a nightmare for players like Stan and DP (as indeed he was a few years back) not the other way around.

It's because the bar has been set so high by Federer and Nadal. Murray has won some Slams so people don't expect him to be destroyed.

People need to realise post-Federer that absurd runs like 18 finals in 19 Slams aren't going to happen again.

As for reaction, Nafal has been written off after Wimbledons, and Federer is being written off. The OP seems to have overlooked this.

There is not a huge problem here. For the first time in 5 slams he has failed to reach the final. That's not just a good record, it's a great record. That tells us all just how good Murray is.

However, he's been poor since Wimbledon. Not for any technical reason, we all know the backhand is great, the forehand loads better, the first serve a bomb, the movement tremendous.... But he just played poorly. He wasn't up for it. Had he been playing Novak there's no way he would have been that flat.

Why was he flat? My guess is because weeks earlier he won Wimbledon. He's probably dreamt of that since he was a kid. 77 years its taken for someone from these shores to win it. How do you respond to achieving the ultimate, the holy grail of British sport... With a bit less determination for everything else, it seems.

This defeat will be good for him as it will hopefully hurt. He was kinda coasting, and he can't do that. Remember the year Murray has had is completely new to him. He's never won 2 slams and an Olympics before, he's never been the hunted before.

Indeed BB, lets not ignore Murray's biggest successes have been in the complete absence of Nadal for a start. He, Federer and lesser so Djokovic, are the titans of the game, his comparison will always fall short.

In comparison to them he is too erratic, more prone to mental lapses, has more technical gremlins and deficiencies in his game, and has chosen a path that negated some of his guile and variety. I think there is a problem because of the smaller box he's pushed himself into is starting to have an impact now...he's the one getting caught out by variety and all court tactics when he should be the master at that!!!

He can serve 130-140 but believe its not good for his back, his 2nd serve is getting worse yet players are only starting to realise they can latch onto it...the 2nd serve issue is so basic I'm amazed its not been addressed.

Anyway, I've said it many times...IMO Murray chose a route after 2009 that was at odds with his tennis instinct, yes he's had short term success (all within 12 months) but at what longer term price given the smaller variety box he's got himself hemmed into which others are now exploiting? I reckon he could have done better over his peak with less acquired power and more variety.

Well LYdian, I feel you are being harsh towards Murray in that he has maximized a great deal of his potential. When Murray and Djoko broke on the scene and started to separate themselves from the rest of the pack I in my own mind saw Novak as a 3-6 slam winner and Murray as 1-3 slam winner. I probably undersold both of them by a little bit as I think both will surpass my estimates. What murray in my opinion lacks that the other 3 have is his second serve as you correctly point out. Fed, Djoko, and Nadal all have exceedingly good second serves and better forehands than Andy.

As for the variety, I do think he could use it more often and move in the court more often, but I think in general he has taken the right path in his career development. I think tactically he can be smarter and more varied at times but I don't see the major issues with his career as you do although you are entitled to your opinion.

We're not talking major issues, more nuance of where he could be vs. the top players. I reckon he could have blunted the attack of Djokovic and Nadal more by using a more variety-driven than power-driven approach...in relative terms. You mention, like me, he using less variety twice above. So tell me, why is he using less variety?

hawkeye wrote:I watched some of the Murray/Wawrinka match.

Murray needs to work on his serve. His first serve is inconsistent and his second serve is weak. Rolling a second serve in at 70 odd miles an hour to the middle of the box is asking for trouble. Wawrinka exposed this weakness. He could do with a little more power in his ground strokes too as they looked a little weak compared to Wawrinka's. He is very reluctant to play DTL off both wings but particularly on the forehand. Not sure if that's a tactilcal or a technical problem but it is something that could be improved.  

IMO he should address his body language and audible ranting at himself when things go wrong. I was watching Wawrinka's reaction to Murray's behavior and he was watching Murray's frustration. No doubt drawing inspiration from the effect that his play was having on his opponent and feeding on it. I even caught a few half smiles. Murray should develop a poker face.

I agree Murray should stop talking tosh about peaking for slams. Because it is just that "tosh". Slams are usually won by players who are playing well and it is difficult to suddenly start playing well after playing poorly in other events.

As for the press. The British media should try to be objective when talking about British players including Murray. Concocting fairy tails does no one any favors. Although I do understand that some people do enjoy fairy tales so I can understand the temptation.

When I posted this thread I am not sure what response I would get but now I feel vindicated. It shows that you can post good or should I say constructive stuff rather than 100% destructive about Murray. A pleasing surprise hawkeye.  

bogbrush wrote:It's because the bar has been set so high by Federer and Nadal. Murray has won some Slams so people don't expect him to be destroyed.

People need to realise post-Federer that absurd runs like 18 finals in 19 Slams aren't going to happen again.

As for reaction, Nafal has been written off after Wimbledons, and Federer is being written off. The OP seems to have overlooked this.

I agree on your second line and so why are newspapers/posters trying to expect such a run from Murray or feel it is good to slate him if he doesn't meet up to stats that only legends of the sport achieve?

Yes Nadal was written off by some after Wimbledon (not me may I add) as is Federer. Hmm big difference though BB is that they are seen as two of the greatest players of all-time who have suffered defeats against players ranked 100+ unlike Stan who is a world top ten player plus as we have been told for years Murray will never be in Fed or Rafa's class so surely he shouldn't be so readily written off especially on the back of a quarter-final defeat.

lydian wrote:Indeed BB, lets not ignore Murray's biggest successes have been in the complete absence of Nadal for a start. He, Federer and lesser so Djokovic, are the titans of the game, his comparison will always fall short.

In comparison to them he is too erratic, more prone to mental lapses, has more technical gremlins and deficiencies in his game, and has chosen a path that negated some of his guile and variety. I think there is a problem because of the smaller box he's pushed himself into is starting to have an impact now...he's the one getting caught out by variety and all court tactics when he should be the master at that!!!

He can serve 130-140 but believe its not good for his back, his 2nd serve is getting worse yet players are only starting to realise they can latch onto it...the 2nd serve issue is so basic I'm amazed its not been addressed.

Anyway, I've said it many times...IMO Murray chose a route after 2009 that was at odds with his tennis instinct, yes he's had short term success (all within 12 months) but at what longer term price given the smaller variety box he's got himself hemmed into which others are now exploiting? I reckon he could have done better over his peak with less acquired power and more variety.

I am sorry but you are using a quarter-final defeat as an excuse to lay into him. Very disappointing. Did we get Rafa's game being shredded, his mentality questioned and so negatively posted about his game after a much more shocking defeat against Darcis? Not that I recall.Hmm look back over a year and he has reached four slam finals winning two and an Olympic Gold why not express how good that record is rather than trying to use one defeat against a player in the form of his life as evidence that Murray hasn't got it.

lydian wrote:We're not talking major issues, more nuance of where he could be vs. the top players. I reckon he could have blunted the attack of Djokovic and Nadal more by using a more variety-driven than power-driven approach...in relative terms. You mention, like me, he using less variety twice above. So tell me, why is he using less variety?

Where he is? Hmm just reached the last four slam finals that he has entered winning two. There doesn't seem a heck of a lot wrong with that. If that were Rafa or Roger's record people would be highly complimentary of that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's because the bar has been set so high by Federer and Nadal. Murray has won some Slams so people don't expect him to be destroyed.

People need to realise post-Federer that absurd runs like 18 finals in 19 Slams aren't going to happen again.

As for reaction, Nafal has been written off after Wimbledons, and Federer is being written off. The OP seems to have overlooked this.

I agree on your second line and so why are newspapers/posters trying to expect such a run from Murray or feel it is good to slate him if he doesn't meet up to stats that only legends of the sport achieve?

Yes Nadal was written off by some after Wimbledon (not me may I add) as is Federer. Hmm big difference though BB is that they are seen as two of the greatest players of all-time who have suffered defeats against players ranked 100+ unlike Stan who is a world top ten player plus as we have been told for years Murray will never be in Fed or Rafa's class so surely he shouldn't be so readily written off especially on the back of a quarter-final defeat.

I'm saying people are used to the best players not getting tonked by 2nd rank players. The manner of the defeat was the most conspicuous; firstly the scoreline was emphatic, and secondly he looked to have no answer or plan.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I watched some of the Murray/Wawrinka match.

Murray needs to work on his serve. His first serve is inconsistent and his second serve is weak. Rolling a second serve in at 70 odd miles an hour to the middle of the box is asking for trouble. Wawrinka exposed this weakness. He could do with a little more power in his ground strokes too as they looked a little weak compared to Wawrinka's. He is very reluctant to play DTL off both wings but particularly on the forehand. Not sure if that's a tactilcal or a technical problem but it is something that could be improved.  

IMO he should address his body language and audible ranting at himself when things go wrong. I was watching Wawrinka's reaction to Murray's behavior and he was watching Murray's frustration. No doubt drawing inspiration from the effect that his play was having on his opponent and feeding on it. I even caught a few half smiles. Murray should develop a poker face.

I agree Murray should stop talking tosh about peaking for slams. Because it is just that "tosh". Slams are usually won by players who are playing well and it is difficult to suddenly start playing well after playing poorly in other events.

As for the press. The British media should try to be objective when talking about British players including Murray. Concocting fairy tails does no one any favors. Although I do understand that some people do enjoy fairy tales so I can understand the temptation.

When I posted this thread I am not sure what response I would get but now I feel vindicated. It shows that you can post good or should I say constructive stuff rather than 100% destructive about Murray. A pleasing surprise hawkeye.  

It would be nice if you were able to respond in the same way to my articles.

2nd rank players? Not Stan I am afraid - he is ranked inside the top ten in the world. Since when did that become 2nd rank? Darcis or Stakhovsky yes would fit there.

Agree on your second point that was the worry but until we see a similar type performance soon then only Andy will know what the cause of that was. Lack of motivation is being cited but I'm not sure. I just don't think he got to grips with the conditions and when his predicament got worse as sets drifted away the bad side of Andy crept in plus lets not forget Stan was on fire.

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I watched some of the Murray/Wawrinka match.

Murray needs to work on his serve. His first serve is inconsistent and his second serve is weak. Rolling a second serve in at 70 odd miles an hour to the middle of the box is asking for trouble. Wawrinka exposed this weakness. He could do with a little more power in his ground strokes too as they looked a little weak compared to Wawrinka's. He is very reluctant to play DTL off both wings but particularly on the forehand. Not sure if that's a tactilcal or a technical problem but it is something that could be improved.  

IMO he should address his body language and audible ranting at himself when things go wrong. I was watching Wawrinka's reaction to Murray's behavior and he was watching Murray's frustration. No doubt drawing inspiration from the effect that his play was having on his opponent and feeding on it. I even caught a few half smiles. Murray should develop a poker face.

I agree Murray should stop talking tosh about peaking for slams. Because it is just that "tosh". Slams are usually won by players who are playing well and it is difficult to suddenly start playing well after playing poorly in other events.

As for the press. The British media should try to be objective when talking about British players including Murray. Concocting fairy tails does no one any favors. Although I do understand that some people do enjoy fairy tales so I can understand the temptation.

When I posted this thread I am not sure what response I would get but now I feel vindicated. It shows that you can post good or should I say constructive stuff rather than 100% destructive about Murray. A pleasing surprise hawkeye.  

It would be nice if you were able to respond in the same way to my articles.

I do if they are well-balanced and not just fabricated and over the top rants at Murray. Look around and you will see that is the case.

^ What if I had a theory about how Djokovic was affected by being beaten by Rafa at the FO?

Well thats for another thread eh hawkeye.

There are a couple of article in The Times today that although on the surface are very flattering about Murray's achievements are not quite as hopeful about his immediate prospects.

This flowery piece by Simon Barnes

Murray is suffering from the death of ambition. For him, failure — failure by ever-decreasing margins — was a constant inspiration. Success — the ultimate success, the 77-year kind of success — has had the opposite effect. He killed himself day after day in practice to get there. Now there’s a small voice inside him asking: what’s the point?

The quest for the 77-year grail was his life — so success has deprived him of his life. It’s a hell of an adjustment. Perhaps if Tim Henman had won the US Open and Wimbledon, Murray would have taken his own triumphs in his stride and be even now preparing for a semi-final against Djokovic today. But Murray was the pioneer, Murray was the 77-year man, and so to Murray comes the great backlash.

Perhaps he’ll get over it, win the Australian Open, successfully defend that title in SW19, grab half a dozen more slams. Or perhaps he won’t. Either way, he’s been great.

He took on a crucifyingly hard sporting quest and bloody well did it. It’s impertinent of us to want more.

If the 77-year itch means that his career at the top is over, so what?

Neil Harman is a little less downcast about Murray's long term future but still speculates that he should perhaps cut his immediate schedule

His itinerary for the next month means he will play in Umag, after which he has three back-to-back Asian events scheduled in Bangkok, Tokyo and the Shanghai Rolex Masters. It may be best for him to drop one, two or even all three and get himself into the best shape possible for the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals at the 02 arena in London, where the reception for him will be immense.

I have a lot I would like to say about the Barnes article but I am not sure if what I have to say may upset CC and other Murray fans so I will  I don't want to risk upsetting anyone when they may already be feeling sad

Nope I am not feeling sad. Like I said and that Barnes report taps into it......what a year it has been for Andy Murray. Why should I be sad? Just over a year ago we had Murray's tears as another slam final was lost to Roger Federer at Wimbledon 2012. A few weeks later he returned to Wimbledon to win Olympic Gold, followed it up by winning his first slam at Flushing Meadows, went on to complete a hat-trick of slam finals losing to Novak down under at the start of this year, a back injury ruled him out of RG and then the creme de la creme he won Wimbledon - something no British man had done for 77 years. I cannot see how any Murray fan can be sad after a year like that considering that since 2005 they were told insistently and incessantly that Murray would never win a slam.

Disagree with Harman. Murray needs to play and play and play some more. Get into a remorseless rhythm and make players like Wawrinka fear him again. Throw in chip charges and the like against some of the lesser players so that by the time of the Australian next year he is comfortable changing up his game at will.

I think Barnes has a point. As I said earlier, how can you possibly be as motivated after achieving the British sporting holy grail? The evidence is right in front of us, he didn't look great all tournament aside from an hour against Mayer.

As for the future, that's where I disagree with Barnes. I'm absolutely certain he'll find that fire again. This loss might be the catalyst. Contentment is a dangerous thing for a sportsman, but a couple of painful defeats quickly removes it.

It's a bad loss for Andy, but he did win the last slam. He will still end up with 4-5 slams in my opinion.

Craig - completely agree. What is there to be sad about?

This last 15 months have been unbelievable for us Muzza fans. Almost like a film... The tears of Wimbledon, to the "I can actually do this" of the Olympics, to the self coaching toilet break in New York "you are NOT losing this match!".... To the torturous last game at Wimbledon, and the stadium erupting like a football match after that last ball hit the net.

All this by a player who many said would never win the big prizes. It has been an unbelievable year. Sad is not on the menu.

CaledonianCraig wrote:2nd rank players? Not Stan I am afraid - he is ranked inside the top ten in the world. Since when did that become 2nd rank? Darcis or Stakhovsky yes would fit there.

Agree on your second point that was the worry but until we see a similar type performance soon then only Andy will know what the cause of that was. Lack of motivation is being cited but I'm not sure. I just don't think he got to grips with the conditions and when his predicament got worse as sets drifted away the bad side of Andy crept in plus lets not forget Stan was on fire.

Obviously a guy aged 28 approaching his first Slam semi is 2nd ranked. Those others are makeweights.

He got beat because he's become less flexible and the other guy had more at his is disposal. He also couldn't make it physical,which was the real problem the conditions gave him. Ordinarily he'd keep rallies very long and taxing; in the wind he couldn't run him side to side.

Oh but isn't this the same wind which gifted him his first slam? Silly me.

And sorry but Stan is in the form of his life (regardless of age) and if he reproduces the form he showed against Murray I could certainly see him going further. It could be argues that Stan has had the most impressive run to the semis considering the quality of players he has knocked out.

In short bad day at the office - it happens and yes it happens to every player.

In terms of the media response, Andy's 'problem' is that he is a British athlete. He's therefore either the world's best or inadequate and nothing inbetween.

He's been built up to be of comparable standing to Federer and Nadal. The problem here, aside from the fact he isn't as good as those two, is that he's being compared with peak Federer and Nadal.

By that I mean people have become accustomed to 3 slams in a year and crazy winning streaks. Anything less than that will be seen by some as second tier when in fact it is still brilliant.

This cuts two ways. For Federer and Nadal, it means they exist in stasis. This is best exemplified by the way that a Federer defeat has been greeted with shock in recent years. It's as if he's still the rampaging, 18 out of 19 slam finals guy when in reality that guy left the scene a few years ago.

For Andy though, the failure to ascend to peak Federer and Nadal levels, is used by some as a stick to beat him with. Even though Federer and Nadal themselves aren't at that same level anymore, Rafa's current great form notwithstanding.

So the problem is one of perception in the media. It's possible to be not as good as Federer, Nadal and even Djokovic and still be remarkably good. That's where Andy is. It's a level to which few British sportsman ascend and there's no need to either build it up (yes BBC, I'm talking to you) or denigrate it because it's possible to be even better.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Oh but isn't this the same wind which gifted him his first slam? Silly me.

And sorry but Stan is in the form of his life (regardless of age) and if he reproduces the form he showed against Murray I could certainly see him going further. It could be argues that Stan has had the most impressive run to the semis considering the quality of players he has knocked out.

In short bad day at the office - it happens and yes it happens to every player.

There's no need to be sorry about Stan's form.

Yeah, it's similar wind. What's different is that last year he was playing another guy whose game is based on running the other guy around side to side, who was also neutralised by it.

I think this forum is as guilty as the media for over analysing, looking for reasons and sticks to beat him with. Since the loss I've read that Andy's game has deteriorated in this way or that way, and I've heard people say "it's no surprise because he isn't really that good"...

Do people forget that the last slam that was handed out a matter of weeks ago was won by Andy?

I think Darren Cahill has it spot on(below). Interesting that he says he 'knows' that Andy has struggled to get going. Backs up my belief that it is entirely motivational:


"I think what he has accomplished over the last 14 months has been remarkable. There was always going to be a natural let-down at some stage. Since he won Wimbledon he's got that feeling of: 'Where to now?'

"I know he struggled on the hard courts to get himself going, he worked his backside off to get through to the quarter-finals without really playing great tennis. I don't feel it was all that surprising, considering that he was up against a top-quality opponent who took advantage of that.

"All his life he's been chasing the Wimbledon title and to live a day in his shoes and to understand the pressure he is under as a British athlete chasing that goal is a difficult thing to do. To accomplish that and then get straight back up for the next challenge is very tough. Time will be his best friend at the moment. He can reset his mind and his body and set some new challenges. He will come back even stronger."

That's more or less my take on it Danny. Whether 'he will come back even stronger' I'm not sure. However I do think he will be back challenging at the sharp end of these events for a few years to come yet and can hopefully win a few more.

The bigger concern is playing in a vest. That can only mean there is some kind of niggle and it's a niggle he has had for some time.

That would worry more than a few weeks of patchy form after a year of very good form.

Exactly. I cringe when I know Federer is playing in a vest becase I know what's coming next. It just can't be right that Murray is having to do the same.

hawkeye wrote:I watched some of the Murray/Wawrinka match.

Murray needs to work on his serve. His first serve is inconsistent and his second serve is weak. Rolling a second serve in at 70 odd miles an hour to the middle of the box is asking for trouble. Wawrinka exposed this weakness. He could do with a little more power in his ground strokes too as they looked a little weak compared to Wawrinka's. He is very reluctant to play DTL off both wings but particularly on the forehand. Not sure if that's a tactilcal or a technical problem but it is something that could be improved.  

IMO he should address his body language and audible ranting at himself when things go wrong. I was watching Wawrinka's reaction to Murray's behavior and he was watching Murray's frustration. No doubt drawing inspiration from the effect that his play was having on his opponent and feeding on it. I even caught a few half smiles. Murray should develop a poker face.

I agree Murray should stop talking tosh about peaking for slams. Because it is just that "tosh". Slams are usually won by players who are playing well and it is difficult to suddenly start playing well after playing poorly in other events.

As for the press. The British media should try to be objective when talking about British players including Murray. Concocting fairy tails does no one any favors. Although I do understand that some people do enjoy fairy tales so I can understand the temptation.

I know you really don't like Murray, hawkeye, but that's a really good post.

In the first paragraph about Murray's serve I absolutely agree with the points you make. Goodness knows how many times people have mentioned that second serve and how slow it is. I think Serena and Robson have a second serve which is quicker on average. The combination of the lack of power on the serve and groundies could well be an issue with his back. I think Federer's ground strokes are slower than they used to be, but whether's that's age, injury or conditions related I'm not sure.

About Murray's temperament, I don't think that can change. I'd love Lendl to "slap" it out of him but it's not going to happen, he's just going to have to deal with it. He's 26 and I suppose some people are born with a "poker face" whereas others aren't. I can't remember the last time Nadal or Federer went ballistic like this gif: http://25.media.tumblr.com/c177d28429eda38047ff9a23e49546e1/tumblr_msoe38lVQb1rezzono1_500.gif

I think Murray's serve all year has been very poor. His first serve was slow in the early part of the year as it was never breaking the 130mph mark and I've never seen him double fault so many times in matches, especially at key moments. Could it possibly be back-related? Greg was making a point about the use of the Versaclimber being bad for the back. Lendl used it when he was playing and had some back issues too. I wonder if cutting down on the Versaclimber would be good for Murray's physical health. Forgetting his tennis career, it wouldn't be great if he was physically wrecked by age 50.

Either way, I'd like to see Murray take the rest of the year off but that won't happen. Something's not right with him but whether's it's fatigue or a physical injury we'll never know. It must be incredibly difficult in the aftermath of achieving your life's goal as there will always be a question of "What now?" Marion Bartoli is a prime example of this. She won Wimbledon and had no motivation to carry on. The hunger for a major was enough for her to battle through injuries but now that she's won Wimbledon there's no need to carry on. If Murray retired tomorrow, who'd blame him?