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.

Its simple hawkeye. If your post isnt trying to wind people up or slander somebody, including a player like your analysis post, which has received universal praise, were all ears.

Otherwise wed rather you didnt bother and you went and did something else with your life

The view of Murray's loss (or indeed his recent performances) will depend on what your expectations of him are.  If you expect him to be comparable to Rafa or Roger, then of course losses like these look magnified, because the two of them (Roger especially) used to have fewer of them in their prime.  But Andy is not in their league, so the comparison is unfair.  If you compare him to players who had in the past won maybe 2-5 slams (which to me seems a reasonable guess as to where he will end up), then a loss like this is not so bad - they do happen.

He has just been on a fairly long hot streak, and it was never going to last forever.  Winning Wimbledon after so many years of what must have been tremendous pressure must have made it more difficult to focus on the challenges lying immediately ahead.

In this context, Federer looks amazing in having been able to find motivation throughout his prime years in spite of all the success he had.

It is often said that he could have been even more successful had Rafa not been around.  While - on balance - I suspect that is true, there is part of me that wonders whether having Rafa around may have helped Roger in some ways.  He was never able to "solve" the Rafa puzzle, and that may have given him something to aim for, something that was still there to achieve.  While he never achieved that, maybe he would have relaxed earlier and not achieved all he did if he had managed to find a way to overcome Rafa early on.

Similarly, I wonder if Roger's existence helped Rafa too.  While Rafa was able to beat Roger from early on, on an absolute level Roger was ahead for many years, which in turn gave Nadal something to aim for - to try to prove he can not only beat Roger but actually become as good as Roger.

It's a poor loss, I don't think there's any doubt about that. Stan looked great, and had Murray been on it he might still have lost, such was Stan's performance.

In terms of Murray's standing, does he compare to Federer or Rafa over the course of his career? No. Of course not. But slams are not decided on what you won 7 years ago. The facts are that Andy has won 2 slams over the last 12 months which is more than anyone. Therefore in my opinion he should be judged the same as his rivals, in the here and now. He's earnt that.

Murray's done well to get those 2 slams but has unnaturally flogged his body (and subsequently mind) to death to achieve that. Yes I believe quite a few on here, like me, believe Murray was dealt good fortune over the past 12 months but that's the way sport crumbles. However, I don't envisage many more slams for him, particularly with rampant Nadal and Djokovic in the mix. That said, the next 12-16 slams have to go somewhere so it's not ridiculous to suppose he could win another. Plus there is a dearth of talent behind.

Of course in Murray winning slams again I'm assuming he can rediscover his motivation to continue flogging his body into the unnatural game for him he's channelled it into. I've never been a fan of Murray since he started 'forcing' his game, since he decided to abandon the natural attacking, fast surface developed, net rushing game inside him. Lendl has been good for him for further channelling his energies into a focused counter-grinder who can outlast most guys. However, I do lament the player he's turned into, a kind of 6'3 more powerful Ferrer/Chang. Like those guys I also find zero beauty in his game/shots and now just about every other player exhibits more variety than him, even Ferrer comes to the net more often. Murray is almost anti-tennis in his pursuit to become the model neutraliser.

For me Murray sold his tennis soul to pursue slam glory, and fair enough why not? Its the big prizes he'll be remembered for and he achieved what many other Brits failed to do. But I still believe and maintain it comes at a price. In having to continue pushing an game approach that isn't natural to him (the other top 3 contrastingly pursue an approach that was always inherently natural to them) it requires absolute dedication to the cause, physically and mentally...he's having to redline his talent into a different approach - and thats tough to maintain. Anything less than 100% effort exposes his game style. For me it feels like the effort of staying at 100% unnatural tennis style across 2009-2013 to achieve that slam breakthrough has clicked a fuse in his brain now its been realised. Maybe he can press the reset button and continue on, maybe he can't in the same way. Maybe he'll have to revert, like an elastic band, back to the natural style inside him which might or might not achieve big things in future. I think he'll have, to before its too late through injury, because the unnatural style is slowing killing his body...his back is getting increasingly knackered with all the lunging and twisting side to side as his pursues the muscled Ferrer model of play. Its also exacerbated by FH gremlins which make him lunge further. The huge difference of speed between his 1st and 2nd serves also show he's probably redlining his back there too. Just because you can serve at 130-140 doesn't mean you should do so with regularity.

However...it's odd really but I'm really not that bothered which way he goes to be honest, out of all the top players he leaves me the coldest because I find nothing attractive or interesting in his game whatsoever. Murray has become the standard bearer of the anti-tennis approach for me. It probably reads as sour grapes, although I gain nothing by saying so, its just speaking my mind...keep or sweep.

lydian wrote:
However...it's odd really but I'm really not that bothered which way he goes to be honest, out of all the top players he leaves me the coldest

Really? You can't tell from your posts at all.

Apart from maybe the bits that refer to him being lucky, selling his tennis soul and being the "anti-tennis".

Scathing. I love watching him play. But hey, all about opinions.

He's been dealt plenty of poor fortune as well Lydian, it was about time he got some luck.

Remember tennis as a whole includes everything about it, not just the attacking net rushing stuff. Its a game of defense to offense, and I don't think its fair, and it suggests you haven't watched him very much recently, to say he only counter punches. Good flair attacking players with variety but no defence arent good tennis players, because they have no understanding about half the game, it might not be the pretty part of the game but its necessary

Federer has (or at least had) magnificent defense, particularly defense to offense qualties. Id say thats just as important to his success, probably moreso than his highlight reel tennis.

Murray is a competitive sportsmen, not just a tennis player, a sportsman too, that means he needs great work ethic, dedication, mental strength, and sacrifice to win. His job is to find a way to win, it shouldn't be anti tennis to develop a style that allows him to do just that.

Hes good to watch when hes on song and he pulls out the variety, but hes also a good enough sportsmen to know when to win ugly, or at least try to

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.

Bit of an over-reaction. Murray for me, made the right changes to his game post-2009. I remember watching him run the legs off Nadal in the 2010 Aussie Open and that was the moment I knew he was a future multi-slammer. It impressed me more than his '08 US Open where I thought he just caught a fatigued Nadal cold on a bad day. Pre-2010, when he was more like Tomic, he was often blown off-court by players like Gonzalez having a good day, but he improved his fitness, stamina and strength. His weight of shot in the past year has been immense - particularly that forehand. He's got variety but he's no Federer and I don't think he'll be any more successful trying to be. Federer's cat-like footwork, agility and technique are unique. Murray's primary instinct is his counter-punching game.

This guy made 4 consecutive slam finals, winning 2 - plus an Olympic gold. People are over-analyzing things. Murray was blown off court on a bad day by a hot player. His game doesn't need this dissections being made. He'll be back.

What the AO10 match where Nadal was carrying a knee injury and had to retire? Come on, analyse their H2H properly.
His stamina early on needed improving, no question but he was young.

Let's look at those pre-2010 years you mention.
If we look at 2008-2009 (before that he played reduced seasons of <60 matches and was clearly still a rookie) vs 2010-present...

For 2008-2009 his tour %W:L was 82%
For 2010-2013 his tour %W:L is 79%

For 2008-2009 he won 11 titles (5.5 titles per season) inc 4 Masters
For 2010-2013 he's won 14 titles (3.5 titles per season) inc 5 Masters

For 2008-2009 he was largely ranked #4 (max #2)
For 2010-2013 he's been largely ranked #4 (max #2...up to #3 now Fed is declining)

For 2008-2009 his best WTF result was SF
For 2010-2013 his best WTF result is SF

For 2008-2009 he was 5-3 vs Federer (a more prime Federer too)
For 2010-2013 he's been 5-5 vs Federer

For 2008-2009 he beat 26 Top10 players (13 per season)
For 2010-2013 he beat 31 Top10 players (7.7 per season)
Ok 2013 has some bit left to run but he's almost 2 times less successful vs top 10's.

Also, his 2008-9 and 2010-13 clay %W:L are no different, so the strength gains haven't made much difference.

Yes his slam record is now better but nothing else is - arguably due to decline of Federer, absence of Nadal in past 12 months.
I don't buy this muscleman 2010+ Murray is a radically improved player, he was arguably a more effective player for less effort before then when he used more variety and skill in his game.
The pre-2010 H2H vs Federer also tells you all you need to know...a younger Federer hated playing him back then with all the variety Murray brought to court.

In the AO10 match Rafa hurt himself right at the end of the tie break, as he said himself at the time. So for all but the last 15 minutes of that match he was fine.

As for Murray only succeeding because of Federer's decline, well lets put an * next to Federer's and Rafa's slams because they didn't beat peak Sampras. And lets * Sampras slams as he didn't face peak McEnroe.... And so on.

He won 2 slams by beating the number 1 player in the world in the final both times. That's good enough for me.

Danny you know Nadal has a massive H2H over Murray, inc. winning in all 4 slams they've played since that AO10 match for the loss of only 2 sets. Comparisons vs Nadal are pointless.

Since 2010 Nadal has only had to play (& beat) Federer 2 times in slams - only 1 resulting in a slam title.
Fed's decline hasn't been particularly relevant for Nadal's slam career.

You don't comment on the 2008-9 stats above - they're good enough for me too in raising a number of questions, particularly when you consider he won as many titles 2009 and before than 2010-present.

Well Lydian I'm sure you know best. However I would think that Andy with his two slams, olympic gold, 4 other slam finals and numeous slam S/F and Q/F appearances may disagree with you.

lydian wrote:Danny you know Nadal has a massive H2H over Murray, inc. winning in all 4 slams they've played since that AO10 match for the loss of only 2 sets.

Since 2010 Nadal has only had to play (& beat) Federer 2 times in slams - only 1 resulting in a slam title. Fed's decline hasn't been particularly relevant for Nadal's slam career.

You don't comment on the 2008-9 stats above - they're good enough for me too in raising a number of questions.

5-5 off clay since Murray's first win. Doesn't really seem that one-sided to me.

lol Calder, if only I did.
Well given those recent slam/OG successes I'm sure we'll be seeing many more then.

Lydian we get the picture - you don't rate Murray - fine. But that being the case you shouldn't be so damning. A list of something along the lines of I don't rate him but he has excelled at managing to prove me wrong and win two slams would suffice. As for the number/stat crunching I am sorry but I see it as hypocrisy. By that I mean for years all we heard from non-Murray fans was stuff along the lines of 'oh he can only win Masters so come back when he has won the tournaments that really measure greatness'. Yet here now you are using stats (I don't doubt their accuracy by the way) to knock him for not winning enough tournaments even now that those are slam wins. In short I have witnessed Murray being criticised for being a Multiple Masters winner but no slam wins and now he is slated for not enough Masters wins yet he has won two of the last four slams. Incredible.

As well we all get the gist that Andy will never be in the class of Federer and Nadal so why do people expect him to match their achievements?

I don't rate Justin Timberlake as a singer so I wouldn't try comparing him to a legend such as Frank Sinatra.

Danny_1982 wrote:In the AO10 match Rafa hurt himself right at the end of the tie break, as he said himself at the time. So for all but the last 15 minutes of that match he was fine.

As for Murray only succeeding because of Federer's decline, well lets put an * next to Federer's and Rafa's slams because they didn't beat peak Sampras. And lets * Sampras slams as he didn't face peak McEnroe.... And so on.

He won 2 slams by beating the number 1 player in the world in the final both times. That's good enough for me.

Nadal's injury occurred towards the end of the 2nd set and before the tie break. Just saying.

Very interesting stats Lydian.  I have never thought that Andy became a massively improved player recently but did not realize it was this stark.

On one hand, I am sure Andy is happier with his 2010-2013 than with his 2008-2009, but on the other hand I still think these stats are telling.  The way I see it, a couple of things happened that brought him his recent slam success:

1.  He became mentally stronger in those biggest moments
2.  A bit of luck - sometimes you get the bounces, sometimes you do not.  One could argue that prior to 2012 he was a better player than his zero slams suggested, but on the other hand one could probably say that he is currently not as good a player as his recent slam results suggest either.  I think two slams for his career so far - and somewhere between two and five overall - would seem just about right.

One thing I strongly disagree with is the notion - sometimes brought up here - that Andy is now finally reaching his peak that will last for many years.  I have seen here suggestions that over the next four years he and Nole could pretty much sweep the slams, each getting about a half of them (thus presumably bringing Andy to the vicinity of 10 slams???).

Andy, Nole and Rafa have all been at or near their peak for many years now.  I feel pretty strongly that their peak years are nearing the end.  They have now reached the age where players have traditionally started to decline and for all the talk about how prime years are now shifting, I see no reason to believe they can be at or near their prime for another four years.  At first, their slide will likely be a slow process, but I would be surprised if two years from now they still dominated as they do now.

lydian wrote:lol Calder, if only I did.
Well given those recent slam/OG successes I'm sure we'll be seeing many more then.

That's something we will have to wait and see. I definitely hope he has a couple more in him. Don't think he will get any where near the other three. However as CC has said previously if he doesn't win another that's fine by me. The last 13 months have given some great memories

summerblues wrote:Very interesting stats Lydian.  I have never thought that Andy became a massively improved player recently but did not realize it was this stark.

On one hand, I am sure Andy is happier with his 2010-2013 than with his 2008-2009, but on the other hand I still think these stats are telling.  The way I see it, a couple of things happened that brought him his recent slam success:

1.  He became mentally stronger in those biggest moments
2.  A bit of luck - sometimes you get the bounces, sometimes you do not.  One could argue that prior to 2012 he was a better player than his zero slams suggested, but on the other hand one could probably say that he is currently not as good a player as his recent slam results suggest either.  I think two slams for his career so far - and somewhere between two and five overall - would seem just about right.

One thing I strongly disagree with is the notion - sometimes brought up here - that Andy is now finally reaching his peak that will last for many years.  I have seen here suggestions that over the next four years he and Nole could pretty much sweep the slams, each getting about a half of them (thus presumably bringing Andy to the vicinity of 10 slams???).

Andy, Nole and Rafa have all been at or near their peak for many years now.  I feel pretty strongly that their peak years are nearing the end.  They have now reached the age where players have traditionally started to decline and for all the talk about how prime years are now shifting, I see no reason to believe they can be at or near their prime for another four years.  At first, their slide will likely be a slow process, but I would be surprised if two years from now they still dominated as they do now.

I disagree with most of this post although I think it is well thought out. Especially the part about how Nadal, Murray, and Djoko will probably not be dominating in 2 years. As I have said before and these three have proven me correct, they are a cut above the competition and special players that don't come around very often. You mention that traditionally players start to slide in their mid to late 20s, well if we go by tradition Haas shouldn't be playing some of his best tennis now, and Ferrer shouldn't be in the top 5. Agassi showed that with a commitment to fitness that a player can win a slam and reach world #1 at the age of 33. Never before have we seen such a seasoned and advanced age top 100, how does this fact marry with your assessment that the 3 cream players of this generation will lose their form in the next couple of seasons? I don't think again that Murray is as good as Djoko or Nadal, but I do think he is very close in current form. Lydian's stats on tournament wins etc. are determinative if you simply ignore the two slams wins of last 12 months and don't apply the proper weight and context to those stats.

Murray for my money is a better player in the last couple of years than he was before, same as Nadal he is better than he was in 08, and Djokovic is also significantly better. It belies logic that super talented tennis players, grinding at it every day, and entering their physical primes would be no better than when they were 21 or 22. I mean then why do they waste their time on the practice court they should just stay in the gym and throw away their racquets if after years of work their shots don't get any better. Nadal's serve, Murray's forehand, and Novak's volleys are all examples of these players getting better over the years with their shots. This year Nadal has unveiled his new technique of standing in and blasting return winners, something he basically never did. In short, all three players are better than their early 20s version of themselves years of technical refinements are apparent to anyone who is willing to see it.

Good post socal. Agree with pretty much all of it.

SB - who do you think will be winning slams in 2016 if not Novak, Andy or Rafa? Personally, I feel equally as strongly that Novak is very likely to still be a top slam contender then. I'm less sure about Murray simply because I'm unsure how restrictive his back issues are.

I actually tend to agree Andy hasn't improved as much as I'd have expected over the last few years. I still don't feel, for all his success, that he has quite got his tactical approach correct. I agree with Lydian that more variety is definitely the way for him to go. Whilst his game was crying out for a consistent aggressive forehand a few years back, it wasn't meant to be at the expense of the rest of the variety in his game!

I think Murray was literally caught cold and blasted from the court for it against Wawrinka. In fairness Andy didn't look at all sharp in tournament except for against Llodra. Now the Andy of old might have found a way out against Wawrinka in terms of mixing up his play and keeping his opponent guessing. His abandonment of this has made him more so predictable with his play and it is only with brute force he has managed to add Slams to his trophy cabinet. Yes Federer and Nadal's decline has helped Murray, Look at Djokovic after his first Slam had to wait 3 years for another, Nadal had to wait a year and Federer waited all but 6 months. Murray managed to follow up the US Open with Wimbledon. Murray needs to work on consistency in his play. The 2nd serve is alarmingly poor and like lydian I am amazed it has never been addressed. However for Andy to really kick on and win consistently he needs to mix his play up and become that enigma he was in the early days. That needs to be a plan B because as good as plan A is when it doesn't work, he looks hopelessly outgunned like he did against Stan.

I think we can agree that Andy can be afforded a lapse after what he achieved at Wimbledon and the hoodoo that surrounded the Perry reference that bogged down any British male player within a sniff of a Slam. Andy's success hasn't happened to British fans in the pro era and looks less likely to happen again after he hangs up the racquet. Andy needs to keep on winning like Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have all done in the past if he really wants to get the most out of himself and tennis in this current climate.

Andy has come a long way since that skinny kid which burst onto the scene. I just hope the future holds more success in the Slams for Andy.

summerblues wrote:They have now reached the age where players have traditionally started to decline and for all the talk about how prime years are now shifting, I see no reason to believe they can be at or near their prime for another four years.  At first, their slide will likely be a slow process, but I would be surprised if two years from now they still dominated as they do now.

Eh? It's fine to talk about what used to happen, but it's a bit daft to state this given what's happened during this event (Murray and Nole the yongest QF's) and how much better players now naturally seem to be in their late 20's

You pay no attention to the brutal mental nature of today's game, which is a million times tougher due to the fact that now everyone's an expert. So if your're Dimitrov and still haven't won a Masters at age 21/22 - then you've got a thousand 'followers' asking you why, with half of them now been experts of the mind and hence question the mental strength of whoever adding to the pressure

Your sarcastic ( I assume) article even acknowledged that the young Novak was the future!!

I mean who exactly is going to buck the trend enough during the next three years, to acutally consistently beat the likes of Murray. Harrison? Del Potro with his dodgy wrist? Raonic? Sock? JJ? Let me know when they can do better than a combined record of a couple Masters finals and I'll start worrying

Frankly, their threats come from those that are older than them. A fitter Wawrinka for instance

Nah. We've got to accept that the average peak age, like in a lot of sports has zoomed up - simply because there is better science at keeping the body fit and far more nonsense to distract the young mind from their goals

CaledonianCraig wrote:Lydian we get the picture - you don't rate Murray - fine. But that being the case you shouldn't be so damning. A list of something along the lines of I don't rate him but he has excelled at managing to prove me wrong and win two slams would suffice. As for the number/stat crunching I am sorry but I see it as hypocrisy. By that I mean for years all we heard from non-Murray fans was stuff along the lines of 'oh he can only win Masters so come back when he has won the tournaments that really measure greatness'. Yet here now you are using stats (I don't doubt their accuracy by the way) to knock him for not winning enough tournaments even now that those are slam wins. In short I have witnessed Murray being criticised for being a Multiple Masters winner but no slam wins and now he is slated for not enough Masters wins yet he has won two of the last four slams. Incredible.

CC, has a point. The delicous irony of Murray now been crticised for 'only' winning slams (and difficult Olympics) is hilarious to me

The thing is as well is how many times has Andy been written off in his career and bounced back?

First up there was the fitness issues. When he first played at Wimbledon and looked set to beat Nalbandian and cramped up and lost - people said he wouldn't make it until he got fit.

Guess what? He went away and worked hard and the fitness came.

Andy had to also take several slam final defeats as well and people insisted he'd never win a slam.

Guess what? He stuck at it and kept working hard and finally cracked it despite what people thought.

He also had the weight of expectations on him about Wimbledon for years. He reached a number of semis before reaching the final where he lost to Federer last year. Would it ever happen? Yes it did a year later.

Now again after a quarter-final defeat he is being written off again. Do so at your peril.

Danny_1982 wrote:

lydian wrote:
However...it's odd really but I'm really not that bothered which way he goes to be honest, out of all the top players he leaves me the coldest

Really? You can't tell from your posts at all.  

Apart from maybe the bits that refer to him being lucky, selling his tennis soul and being the "anti-tennis".

Scathing. I love watching him play. But hey, all about opinions.  

Danny had it about. All that concern Lydian and then that last line - I thought for a minute you were writing an amusing script for a new Monty Python skit

Lydian has made some decent points, though, and those statistics make for pretty interesting reading. Personally I don't see him as 'anti-tennis', but I do have a similar disdain for his style of play now versus his more watchable younger self. Nothing against the man, I like him very much, but his matches bore me. However, I'm sure he won't be complaining with the recent success! I just hope that it doesn't backfire via injury in the coming years, it'd be a real shame for such an excellent player to have problems so early on.

As for comparisons with Federer, Nadal and Novak, I don't know why the media are bothering. Federer was a freak, and his numbers may not be beaten for 50 years, and Nadal/Djokovic are ATGs already. As Danny said, more people need to realise that you can be below those players (all top 10 in history at this stage?), and still be a staggering good and successful player. The guy's just won Wimbledon, the holy grail! He deserves more respect. HM knocked it on the head - in Britain, if you're the not the absolute best, then you will be roundly criticised for perceived 'underperformances' all over the shop.

lydian wrote:What the AO10 match where Nadal was carrying a knee injury and had to retire? Come on, analyse their H2H properly.
His stamina early on needed improving, no question but he was young.

Let's look at those pre-2010 years you mention.
If we look at 2008-2009 (before that he played reduced seasons of <60 matches and was clearly still a rookie) vs 2010-present...

For 2008-2009 his tour %W:L was 82%
For 2010-2013 his tour %W:L is 79%

For 2008-2009 he won 11 titles (5.5 titles per season) inc 4 Masters
For 2010-2013 he's won 14 titles (3.5 titles per season) inc 5 Masters

For 2008-2009 he was largely ranked #4 (max #2)
For 2010-2013 he's been largely ranked #4 (max #2...up to #3 now Fed is declining)

For 2008-2009 his best WTF result was SF
For 2010-2013 his best WTF result is SF

For 2008-2009 he was 5-3 vs Federer (a more prime Federer too)
For 2010-2013 he's been 5-5 vs Federer

For 2008-2009 he beat 26 Top10 players (13 per season)
For 2010-2013 he beat 31 Top10 players (7.7 per season)
Ok 2013 has some bit left to run but he's almost 2 times less successful vs top 10's.

Also, his 2008-9 and 2010-13 clay %W:L are no different, so the strength gains haven't made much difference.


Yes his slam record is now better but nothing else is - arguably due to decline of Federer, absence of Nadal in past 12 months. .

What he should have done, during this fallow period, is win every hard court Masters and have a better record against Top 10 players, i.e. sod the Slams or The Olympics. After all Top 10 wins / Masters / Win ratio's are what all the greats are remembered for - not slams
 
Can you also explain how Nadal was absent at this years Wimbledon? Or does it not count if you get knocked out in the first round?
 
It's great that Murray can lose to one of the best players in the world (on Stan's day) and it's the end of his career - but Nadal can lose early in two consecutive Wimbledon's to players who nobody will hear of again but that's not a problem!!
 
 

lydian wrote:I don't buy this muscleman 2010+ Murray is a radically improved player, he was arguably a more effective player for less effort before then when he used more variety and skill in his game.

I wasn't aware that Murray had bulked up since 2010, but what do I know. So he was a more effective player before 2010 - even though his slam reocord since wipes the floor with these previous times
 
I really don't know where you are with this Lydian. I'm a bit of a mathematical geek, but this is lies, damn lies and statistics, if ever there was a case.
 
 

lydian wrote:The pre-2010 H2H vs Federer also tells you all you need to know...a younger Federer hated playing him back then with all the variety Murray brought to court.

 
I think you'll find that Fed most "hated" playing him at last years Olympics as that was a victory which still had oodles of the Murray variety, but more importantly really really mattered to Roger. So much so, he's not been the same since
 
And actually the post 2009 (i.e. after pre-2010) H2H vs Federer tells you all want to know;-
 
1) First victory in a final against him
2) First sets taken off him in a Slam
3) Ended his hopes of ever winning The Olympics
4) First victory in a slam against him
5) Every victory, with the exception of this years Aus Open, was a one-sided mauling by Murray. And even the Aus victory was a match always under Murray's control
 
So you can take some Murray attritional victories over Fed that weren't even in finals (and often not even semi's) and come to the conclusion that they were more impressive than post 2009 ones?
 
And we're supposed to take you seriously?
 
I appreciate you thinking differently and actualy I don't think Lendl has made that much difference - but the game has changed even since 2009. I'd love Andy to do his 'slice and dice' for an entire match - but unfortunately everybody now hits the ball even harder and so the old tricks have to be kept hidden in the locker to be used when needed
 
i.e. like the 2013 Wimbledon final

I must have missed something somewhere then. I cannot remember Andy ever getting praise for his all-round game be it now or two years ago, four years ago or seven years ago. It just seems another reason to criticise Murray of today. Turn the clock back a few years and I bet you won't find posters raving about Murray just like they aren't raving about him now - even though he has won two slams in twelve months. Pretty depressing really.

Murray's fine. We saw today that Stan's a great player who lacks the fitness that the Top 3 have. For me, it's no disgrace that a slightly blow par Murray loses to a player who takes the world No.1 to five sets for the second time this year

Murrays got no variety ?
No motivation ?
No 1st serve ?
No answers ?
No mental strength ?

Now I've heard it all. A player like that would be termed a journeyman at best, club player at worst. How someone with credentials like those above could possibly win Wimbledon, the US open and an Olympic gold must have rigged the matches, cost him a bundle in bribes and doped his opponents into jibbering jelly.

OR

He's a ton better than you want to or believe he is. Its amazing how the scalpels come out and dissect him to bits because he had one of the worst showings this year at a slam, yet all his past glories are forgotten.

So he lost to Warwrinka, the player in form who incidentally took Djokovic to 5 sets today, his game has been under par for 3 months, which is not long in tennis terms, when only this time last year we were heralding a new era in tennis and when he won in SW19, it was going to be a Murrokovic span of 5 years of domination.

Selective memories are fine for journalists, but I thought there were informed and intelligent posters on here !

Lydian

One other thing. Murray played a set at this event, where he didn't make a single unforced error, i.e. he was back to the player he liked

And by sheer coincidence back to the Slam results you like

Silver wrote:Lydian has made some decent points, though, and those statistics make for pretty interesting reading. Personally I don't see him as 'anti-tennis', but I do have a similar disdain for his style of play now versus his more watchable younger self. Nothing against the man, I like him very much, but his matches bore me. However, I'm sure he won't be complaining with the recent success! I just hope that it doesn't backfire via injury in the coming years, it'd be a real shame for such an excellent player to have problems so early on.

As for comparisons with Federer, Nadal and Novak, I don't know why the media are bothering. Federer was a freak, and his numbers may not be beaten for 50 years, and Nadal/Djokovic are ATGs already. As Danny said, more people need to realise that you can be below those players (all top 10 in history at this stage?), and still be a staggering good and successful player. The guy's just won Wimbledon, the holy grail! He deserves more respect. HM knocked it on the head - in Britain, if you're the not the absolute best, then you will be roundly criticised for perceived 'underperformances' all over the shop.

Good post there silver, we do need to give the guy some credence for having won in the last 15 months the two biggest tournaments in the game. Plus he still has closed his account for future honors, actually he is well placed to collect his share. He does seem to garner a great deal of downgrading considering his quite sparkling CV.

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.

To be fair, top 10 is second rank. The big 4 are definitely a rank above, or were, hard to tell where Fed is now

But Murray will be fine. He doesn't have Rafa or Novak's ridiculous ability to win matches on pure guts and will when their tennis just isn't working but then again nobody else does. So the thing to do is to make sure his tennis is working and that is something that will be fine in the future. He has improved his mentality even if it's not as good as the two I mentioned and I thought once that he would never win a slam. Winning 2 plus gold is a great achievement and I think he will end up with 5 which would be fantastic

ChequeredJersey wrote:

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.

To be fair, top 10 is second rank. The big 4 are definitely a rank above, or were, hard to tell where Fed is now

So if Wawrinka is second rank then what rank are Rosol, Darcis and Stakhovsky? Also if second rank it boosts this era a bit then as that is twice this year he has scared the life out of the world No.1.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

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.

To be fair, top 10 is second rank. The big 4 are definitely a rank above, or were, hard to tell where Fed is now

So if Wawrinka is second rank then what rank are Rosol, Darcis and Stakhovsky? Also if second rank it boosts this era a bit then as that is twice this year he has scared the life out of the world No.1.

4th rank at best! Nothing wrong with losing to Stannis, just being a pedant, that's all

ChequeredJersey wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

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.

To be fair, top 10 is second rank. The big 4 are definitely a rank above, or were, hard to tell where Fed is now

So if Wawrinka is second rank then what rank are Rosol, Darcis and Stakhovsky? Also if second rank it boosts this era a bit then as that is twice this year he has scared the life out of the world No.1.

4th rank at best! Nothing wrong with losing to Stannis, just being a pedant, that's all

Ah right so 2nd rank if your ranked outside top four but in top ten yet if outside the top 100 you are only fourth rank - I certainly don'y buy that scale. I am not having a go at you CJ just the inconsistencies created by other posters to slate Murray. If we were sitting here now with Federer or Nadal having won two of the last four slams and reached all four slam finals they had entered would we be having this conversation? Absolutely and most definitely NOT.

Fair enough but one of the complaints about this era of tennis is how far ahead the top 4 are over the opposition- and they have been, they really really have been so putting Stan (at this point) in the same tier as Andy and Novak and Rafa doesn't add up. He and a few others (the top 10 or maybe a few more) can challenge these guys on their days but are not in the same class, if they were they'd have slams and be more consistent. Which is fine- we have 2 arguable contenders for GOAT and possibly another playing right now. Then there are less consistent but still deep-slam-run capable players that I'd call 3rd tier. After that 4th, still pros but way below the others, and that is frankly what Rafa and Roger lost matches to

But I agree that the writing off and slagging off of Murray is inappropriate

Inappropriate? Lol...what is it, the thought police on here? Just because I don't think the sun shines out of Murray's backside doesn't mean my comments don't have any validity. Deeming them inappropriate and mere "slagging off" is a lazy way of retorting.

Murray chose the muscle & endurance route instead of honing his instinctive cat/mouse game. Fine, it's helped him get 2 slams & OG (and yes I feel he had a huge slice of luck in all those and hence his level now is actually no different to 08-09, arguably not as good) but I believe he's shortened his career as a result of deciding to flog his body in an unnatural way.

He went from someone - perhaps surprisingly to some - I quite enjoyed watching to someone who maintains the grimace of a dying swan each time he plays and has watchability 1 step up from Granollers in my opinion. It's like Mecir turning into Chang, Santoro into Ferrer. Actually, Ferrer has become more interesting to watch as he uses more variety between baseline and net.

Yes inappropriate. You have told us all how much you don't rate him yet he has won two of the last four slams yet you are here slating him. Don't you find that curious? I mean evidently your estimation of Murray is low so whatever he achieves (two slams in this era is damn impressive) then I cannot see how you feel you have the right to be so critical. Fair enough if you rate Murray but it is clear you do not so kind of negates all that you say.

You call it slating but its my opinion and I know this ball game pretty well. I still firmly believe his actual tennis playing level is no different, i.e. better, from that 4-5 years ago. He simply got stronger and fitter, and dropped the variety. He was reaching SF and F's back then, and believe that's probably around his level now. Yes he's won titles since but the field was less strong the past 12 months, with Nadal AWOL for one and Federer cream-crackered in that OG final after 4hrs 26mins vs Del Potro.

I have every right to be as critical as I chose and my opinions are not merely formed overnight, I'm not some internet troll who waltzes in from chat boards now and then, I live and breathe tennis, attend LTA talent days and the like and have watched Murray play since he debuted in Davis Cup back in 2005. Indeed I liked his game back then. That's my point. Yes he's had success but you won't convince me he's actually any better now than before and trust me we can get very technical if you want on every shot in his repertoire. Hitting shots harder through more muscle is not a technical improvement BtW.

Yes he needed to get stronger and fitter, of course, but we will never know the success he could have had in his prime had he honed the game that gave him a 6-4 lead over Federer by 2009 rather than resorting to emulating his idol, Nadal. You say he's successful now, I say he could have been more successful.

Oh I rate Murray as a good player but for me he's somewhat squandered the potential of the talent he had inside him given his ascent from an early age to the top 5 of the game was JUST AS FAST as Nadal, Federer and Djokovic! He was on the same trajectory path as them! So when people like you say 2 slams is great for Murray, he should be proud, I think different. For all the obvious talent he had there is no reason why he couldnt have been better than say Djokovic. The problem for me is he chose an unnatural route after that early phase - a route that for me will always limit what he can achieve because of its mental and physical stress in maintaining it. We're starting to see that now. So call this inappropriate and slagging him off if you like but I won't be swayed from my opinions having watched the guy closely for 8 years.

To see the guy who had the tennis world at his feet with a unique game that no-one else had be turned into a grinding, limited tactics type player who goes to the net even less than Ferrer its a very sad sight to me and epitomises everything thats wrong with the game right now. So when you think I'm slagging him off what I'm actually doing is bemoaning the player he's become and all that stands for because I believe he could have been so much better. That's why I posted those 08-09 stats.

Nobody is saying you are a WUM but things don't add up. Your general point is that you feel his game has gone backwards from three or four years ago say - that is your opinion. His game has changed and been tweaked and if the pay off is less Masters wins for slam wins then I will take that any time - who wouldn't. His slam record (prior to this tournament) is second to none over the last year or so and that is why I find what you are saying very harsh. For years Murray fans were told to pipe down (metaphorically) when praising Murray for winning Masters as they were not slams and now he has won slams we are being told more negative stuff.

You feel he could have been more successful - since 2009 you feel? Well he chipped away reaching slam finals in an era containing Federer, Nadal and Djokovic but mentally (not talent-wise in my opinion) was his failing. That side of his game has improved immeasurably though so I am not at all concerned about what direction his game has gone down. Two slams out of the last four he has entered coming here - surely he is doing something right? No?

He's done well with the opportunities he's had the past 12 months, yes. Let's see where he goes from here now that we have full strength Nadal and Djokovic in the game. He's chosen the route that Nadal and Djokovic excel at naturally...so good luck with that if they're both anywhere near their normal capability and there's no wind around.

But his best match pair of matches ever were the Olympics SF and F. So you can't surprised when we're a bit bemused by your 'doom and gloom' about Murray

His play this year hasn't been as impressive as last summer - but to then wrap [b]all[b] his performances since 2010 and then make a sweeping statement, making out that any good wins were just lucky is madness

Murray played two sets at this open as good as anything I'd seen - sadly he needed to play at least 10 more like that

It's a fait accompli, with you with Murray - you'll always find a way to make out he plays rubbish Tennis, even though he's played many memorable matches in the last three years

A decent Greg article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/usopen/10292094/US-Open-2013-Andy-Murrays-passive-defeat-to-Stanislas-Wawrinka-could-be-due-to-his-on-going-back-problem.html

As rare as a Lydian compliment about Murray  

Well Lydian, its the difference between being a tennis player... and being a sportsman.

A tennis player is playing your natural game looking pretty or whatever, doing what you do. Its about the backhand the forehands etc. There are loads of good tennis players who havent won anything of particular note, Richard is the best example. Whilst this doesnt seem fair, its simple, Gasquet isnt nearly as good a sportsman.

sportsman involves everything else. Getting strong, doing the gym work, mental strength, character, managing your schedule to peak at the right times, coming up with strategies to win EVEN if it means going away from your natural game, something Murray learnt agaisnt Nadal in 2008 Wimbledon when he was schooled.

Murrys play is similar, different but similar to his 09 level. But back then he was mentally weak compared to the best, he wasnt good enogh a sportsmen. Nowadays he arguably the best one in the business, hence why people slagging him off and insulting his success wont put him off anymore.

We disagree with your opinion Lydian, we dont hate you remember, but you have quite a strong opinion on this, it would be wise to remember that people will have strong ones back.

Lydian  You are lucky you are not hated. I tried my best to come up with constructive criticism as requested by CC. CC even said he liked it  But I still got this damming warning

falzy21 wrote:Its simple hawkeye. If your post isnt trying to wind people up or slander somebody, including a player like your analysis post, which has received universal praise, were all ears.

Otherwise wed rather you didnt bother and you went and did something else with your life