The Murray Aftermath

First topic message reminder :

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.

SB - my personal view is that it is closer to (b) at least as far as actual tennis improvements are concerned. The improvement has been an ability to at least play ok in slam finals. He was shocking in both the 2010 and 2011 Oz finals particularly.

In relation to Lydian's stats rhey are not surprising. Murray himself basically said he was focussing solely on the slams a few years back. What they clearly do not demonstrate is that Murray is only winning slams because of Fed and Nadal's decline. If so, Id expect to see the same increase in results at Masters level.

bogbrush wrote:That's interesting. Federer was an original. So is Nadal. Murray 2012/3 is arguably based on others. Such a player is likely to at best arrive close to the standard of those he aspires to.

I don't really agree with this. Murray is also an original style of play and often still uses it, i.e. variation of speeds and shot selection. This tactic is still the one that beats Federer. If you look at their Aus Ope SF this year, you will see that when Murray was at his best it was when he was pulling Roger all over the court.

Against Novak, whislt it's fair to say, this time last year, it became a two dimensional attritional game, at Wimbledon it was actually Andy's variety (admittedley, not used that often) that meant that the Serb ended up with a desperate drop shot tactic. But of course it's the high profile final of last year, that resulted in lots saying he now plays with no variety!! The reality is, Novak is too fast to move around hard courts - so variety slice and dice or drop shots, won't work. At a hot Wimbledon, it's more of a chance

With Rafa, it is fair to say that Murray's 2011 slam meetings were him trying to be more powerful than the multi slam winner, i.e. it is true to say that he was trying to be someone else. However I really don't see how we can judge his approach now as they haven't met for nearly two years. In their last meeting, Murray played similar to what he produced here 5 years ago (SF) - it didn't work at first (lost the first set) but he (for a change) stuck with it and it reaped dividends

I remember reading a revealing interview with him in February 2011. Here, he was arguably at the lowest ebb of his career. However, he insisted that he would not change his variety game as he actually liked playing that way. He did admit that he needed to add something else to it - but insisted it would not be replaced. I found it both courageous (because it's admirable to stick at what you believe in) and foolhardy (it might now win him a slam)

Basically, he's subtly improved the forehand - but nothing else has changed. I'd argue that if he'd met Novak in any Wimbledon final after 2008 - he'd probably have won that as well, i.e. it was the delicious old Murray with splattering's of the new

I think we watched different wimby finals banbro, i saw no variety really from murray, more so from novak and that cost him.

bogbrush wrote:That's interesting. Federer was an original. So is Nadal. Murray 2012/3 is arguably based on others. Such a player is likely to at best arrive close to the standard of those he aspires to.

I've been think along similar lines in relation to Novak.

Both Federer and Nadal have totally unique games. They produce shots that really nobody else could hit and, in Federer's case, envision. I think this is key to their longevity. Their uniqueness means they always provide a difficult match up because people don't usually face opponents who play the same way.

Andy and Novak have conventional games. Brilliant games, yes, but still conventional. Their success stems from doing these conventional things better than almost everyone else.

Novak's recent struggles and Andy's relative vulnerability to lower ranked players come, I think, from the fact that if their game is not working, they don't really have anywhere to go (apart from outlasting their opponent). They are producing shots that their opponents face week-in week-out. If the quality of these shots dips, the match up becomes way easier.

LuvSports! wrote:I think we watched different wimby finals banbro, i saw no variety really from murray, more so from novak and that cost him.

Depends what you mean by variety. Murray used the slice very effectively in the W final, came to the net a few times, but not loads. Didn't play many drop shots. Played to either wing of Novak, sometimes flat and sometimes with lots of height. A good mix I thought.

Novak came to the net a lot more, and foolishly overused the drop shot. He tried to avoid the slice v slice battles (wise choice). Other than that he played most his shots pretty flat as normal. So if variety means volleys and drop shots, yes Novak played with loads more. If it means a mix of pace and slice then I thought Murray played with lots.

So perhaps it comes down to people's definition of variety.

Regarding Andy's Wimbledon final, why use variety when you don't need to?

Had Novak executed his net play and drop shots better, Andy would probably have done something about it.

As it was, lapping up those errors and hammering passing shots past Novak was a pretty sound strategy!

I think some think that because Andy no longer plays like he did at the Dubai 2007 Fed win, he no longer uses variety.

At his best (all recent Wimbledon victories against the Top 20) he uses the variety to foul up the minds of his opponents. Once they self implode, as Murdoch aludes to, there is no need to keep using it

At that Dubai match, he did it for every point - giving us that memorable Fed press conference  

When it doesn't work - he looks terrible, i.e. he tried it with Stan, who ran them all down

Murray did a "masterclass" on the drop shot. I couldn't stop chuckling.

banbrotam wrote:I think some think that because Andy no longer plays like he did at the Dubai 2007 Fed win, he no longer uses variety.

At his best (all recent Wimbledon victories against the Top 20) he uses the variety to foul up the minds of his opponents. Once they self implode, as Murdoch aludes to, there is no need to keep using it

At that Dubai match, he did it for every point - giving us that memorable Fed press conference  

When it doesn't work - he looks terrible, i.e. he tried it with Stan, who ran them all down

Do you mean 2008? When Federer said he needed to be more aggressive, everyone went mental, then a year after all said the same thing?

I was been a bit glib BB. No need to get protective. You never catch me doing that with Andy  

Federer was right, but not certain you state it when you've just been beaten by said player  

And I'm getting old - forgot it was 2008