Andy Murray - get it of your chests

First topic message reminder :

Feel free to discuss the exit of Murray

This is a special post, that allows people to troll as much as they want - as you know you want to

You can also have some decent discussion here too

(Keeps the other threads clearer)

We always have such huge expectations of these players.. they are, I have stated before, human with the same frailities as we all have. There was "rumour" that his girlfriend left the courts on her own, followed by his Mum... it was suggested that there had been some sort of domestic problem before the match Now if this had been the case Andy is like the rest of us... it would have certainly affected him.  But even so.. the expectations are more for Andy at Wimbledon than any other player on tour. As Rafa at the FO... he has made the rod for his own back.  We need to give these players some breathing space they have been at the top for so long it is inevitable that these young fresh guns are going all out to chop them down. It is not possible to be all things to all people

Blimey, that stork is earning his corn. Congrats HM

Craig, haven't seen a single post about Murray's slams being a fluke on this forum? But good post otherwise, I have to wonder about where Andy is going to go from here. Hopefully he can have a good assessment of where he is, where he wants to be, and whether he's willing to put in the work/implement the change needed to get there.

If an 18 year old Andy Murray had been offered the career he's had to date (2 slams including Wimbledon, Olympic gold, 9 (?) masters and millions in the bank), but been told he wouldn't win anything else of note after having back surgery at 26, I'm sure he'd have taken that Faustian bargain like a shot. Whatever happens from now on in, he has a legendary position within the history of British sport.

I know Andy looked great in the first four rounds, but I'm not sure what the standard really was. It all depends on the opposition. When Delpo had his surgery a few years ago, I think it took over a year before he was really competitive against the top guys again. It might take that for Andy and if he never gets back to where  he was, well never mind; please re-read above paragraph.

Not strictly true Silver. Lydian cited the old BS of a tired Djoko (Wimbledon 2013) and wind (US Open 2012) oh and plus a tired Fed at Olympics on another thread. Admittedly, that is the only such one I think I have read on here but a few like that on BBC comments page or newspaper comments page.

Good post Womble and I would agree with the majority of it.

I still hope that Murray will change tack and become more of an attacking player. His hand may be forced as he ages in any case, retrieving balls ad infinitum surely becomes a pretty galling prospect when the big 3 0 starts staring you in the face.

He's always had the skillset and the fabled "tennis brain" to be an excellent attacking player, I blame all those formative years training with Nadal!

Lydian & I had the same view of Murray narrowing his game. Maybe now he'll need to change. Lydian always cited how his h2h with Federer deteriorated when he became more rope-a-dope.

Anyway, I think the game may begin to change anyway, hopefully back to greater attack.

I've always had the feeling that such play doesn't come entirely naturally to Murray - same with all the bulking up and bikram yoga stuff, it was stuff he "had" to do to succeed - other players have put in the hard yards too but it doesn't seem to be such a chore for them.

Murray not the most natural or fluid of players or even the most competitive of players.

What he was in the early days was a thinker and good tactician. That's what I liked in his game. Someone who could think their way past an opponent. Sadly he traded that in.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Murray not the most natural or fluid of players or even the most competitive of players.

What he was in the early days was a thinker and good tactician. That's what I liked in his game. Someone who could think their way past an opponent. Sadly he traded that in.

Yep.

The fitness thing didn't have to mean that either, but he went down that attritional tennis route. He won things with it but I always remember that at Wimbledon 2012 it was he who wilted physically, not Federer - which imo was because Federer always had the initiate in rallies and ran him ragged. The old Andy, but fitter, might have employed a few smarter tricks.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Murray not the most natural or fluid of players or even the most competitive of players.

What he was in the early days was a thinker and good tactician. That's what I liked in his game. Someone who could think their way past an opponent. Sadly he traded that in.

Yep.

The fitness thing didn't have to mean that either, but he went down that attritional tennis route. He won things with it but I always remember that at Wimbledon 2012 it was he who wilted physically, not Federer - which imo was because Federer always had the initiate in rallies and ran him ragged. The old Andy, but fitter, might have employed a few smarter tricks.

He did.

Federer played those 2 sublime points and completely turned the match. It wasn't the roof. It was those 2 points that lifted Federer and crushed Murray. That's what the 'improved' Murray lacked. Killer points that turn matches. The old Murray would've made something happen in the 3rd set.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Murray not the most natural or fluid of players or even the most competitive of players.

What he was in the early days was a thinker and good tactician. That's what I liked in his game. Someone who could think their way past an opponent. Sadly he traded that in.

Yep.

The fitness thing didn't have to mean that either, but he went down that attritional tennis route. He won things with it but I always remember that at Wimbledon 2012 it was he who wilted physically, not Federer - which imo was because Federer always had the initiate in rallies and ran him ragged. The old Andy, but fitter, might have employed a few smarter tricks.

He did.

Federer played those 2 sublime points and completely turned the match. It wasn't the roof. It was those 2 points that lifted Federer and crushed Murray. That's what the 'improved' Murray lacked. Killer points that turn matches. The old Murray would've made something happen in the 3rd set.

I think we're pretty much in agreement about this then.

However lk, I'm not sure I agree that Murray's not a natural - I remember that 5 setter against Fat Dave in 2005 when he was a teenager - and his game looked plenty natural then. Nalbandian had to pull out all the stops to get past him. Events conspired after that to take him down this attritional path - it's been really frustrating to see. Sadly I don't think Mauresmo is going to change things radically for the better, but we live in hope.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/03/andy-murray-wimbledon-speculation-rubbish-tim-henman

Henman is quashing any speculation of strange goings on before or during the match.

No doubt this will rumble on.

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Murray not the most natural or fluid of players or even the most competitive of players.

What he was in the early days was a thinker and good tactician. That's what I liked in his game. Someone who could think their way past an opponent. Sadly he traded that in.

Yep.

The fitness thing didn't have to mean that either, but he went down that attritional tennis route. He won things with it but I always remember that at Wimbledon 2012 it was he who wilted physically, not Federer - which imo was because Federer always had the initiate in rallies and ran him ragged. The old Andy, but fitter, might have employed a few smarter tricks.

He did.

Federer played those 2 sublime points and completely turned the match. It wasn't the roof. It was those 2 points that lifted Federer and crushed Murray. That's what the 'improved' Murray lacked. Killer points that turn matches. The old Murray would've made something happen in the 3rd set.

I think we're pretty much in agreement about this then.

However lk, I'm not sure I agree that Murray's not a natural - I remember that 5 setter against Fat Dave in 2005 when he was a teenager - and his game looked plenty natural then. Nalbandian had to pull out all the stops to get past him. Events conspired after that to take him down this attritional path - it's been really frustrating to see. Sadly I don't think Mauresmo is going to change things radically for the better, but we live in hope.

Take his movement and power. Not natural in the sense compared with the other top 3.

His performance against Dave was superb. One thing Murray has over the others and is on par with Djokovic is great anticipation of reading shots early. That is natural for sure. The other elements of his game don't seem natural to me. Not taking anything away from him.

His ability to think on his feet and anticipate are natural.

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/03/andy-murray-wimbledon-speculation-rubbish-tim-henman

Henman is quashing any speculation of strange goings on before or during the match.

No doubt this will rumble on.

Is Tim his gf/mom/coach? Or an SMS buddy of Andy, and the usual "whats up mate? all good. Ah ok, its all rubbish then.

More of a compatriot support from Tim, then he actually knowing anything about what went on.

Jahu wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jul/03/andy-murray-wimbledon-speculation-rubbish-tim-henman

Henman is quashing any speculation of strange goings on before or during the match.

No doubt this will rumble on.

Is Tim his gf/mom/coach? Or an SMS buddy of Andy, and the usual "whats up mate? all good. Ah ok, its all rubbish then.

More of a compatriot support from Tim, then he actually knowing anything about what went on.

Well no actually. Tim says he was in the locker room with Andy before he went onto court and he was fine. Seems Tim is in a much better position to judge than newspaper rags supposition.

Yes, but there was no fight in locker room, for Tim to witness.

Andy seems to have been impacted by some sort of "verbal" thing, and most likely related to him/family. Otherwise, something really big upset him.

Anyway this guessing game, coupled with media crap, is BS.

Lets give him some rest. Only he knows what happened 5 minutes before the match.

Jahu wrote:Yes, but there was no fight in locker room, for Tim to witness.

Andy seems to have been impacted by some sort of "verbal" thing, and most likely related to him/family. Otherwise, something really big upset him.

Anyway this guessing game, coupled with media crap, is BS.

Lets give him some rest. Only he knows what happened 5 minutes before the match.

Noble sentiments Jahu but you are the one fanning the flames with your assumptions and calling Murray names (yesterday) for something you know diddly squat about.

I call names most of players. Whats new? And you know exactly what happened to him?

Oh did my flames hurt you? Cause they were for Andy, not you. Act your age.

Or you show some decorum and respect eh? You post making out you don't pay attention to media BS (your words) yet 24 hours earlier you were going along with the same media BS to berate Murray for supposedly mistreating his GF without any evidence whatsoever. Oh how very clever of you.

Reading news posted here on threads is not much of a media attention.

And leaving the court alone in a car, and gf with someone else, is not mistreating, I never said that. I sad that's nasty, mistreating is totally different beast, stop imagining things.

Also as I've said it a few weeks ago, stop over analyzing every post here, and fine tunning your responses to defend Andy.

I am sure posters here will agree I am perhaps the most critical of Murray. Umpteen posts on here are evidence of that and I am generally fine with other posters if they make a valid point that is critical of Murray. It is when inventions and unproven crap gets posted that gets my back up and I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. Twisting stories when you have no facts to suit your agenda or make smart arse comments are pretty pathetic really. Until Kim does a report in a Sunday rag berating Murray for being nasty to her there is absolutely no need for such remarks in my opinion - absolutely not. Sure feel free to criticize elements of his game and manner of his defeats and I am all for such discussions but leave the gutter press stuff to them eh as it neither looks smart or good.

Easy fellas!

I'm not gonna bother to comment. Andy has lost and CC fights with me and defends Andy.

And likes to tell me what opinions I should post and what I should not.

I've made my views known about the issues you have a few weeks back, so please ignore my posts, and there is a setting somewhere to ignore me completely   

not much to say about murray season, he didnt find last years top for after the injury, thats all.

Jahu wrote:I'm not gonna bother to comment. Andy has lost and CC fights with me and defends Andy.

And likes to tell me what opinions I should post and what I should not.

Yes Andy has lost....correct. For losing where have I defended Andy? I have not. I have criTIcized many aspects of his game. I would not call that defending. If you are offended because I dare to challenge/object to you for adding catty comments to beef up an unproven newspaper rag article just to paint a player in a bad light then tough - perhaps you should engage your brain before making unfounded comments as, after all, that is precisely what they are.

Oh ok, now I'm brainless and disengaged from my brain?

Me offended? Oh god, you talk like an old lady, one side sticking it at you, the other side softly apologizing, kind of balancing the act, eh?

Get off my back  

Well evidently it is not fully engaged. Today you speak of media BS but yesterday you were feeding off that same media BS and adding your own inventions to it as well. So which is it eh? Media BS or Jahu adding to the BS? You can't berate the media after you have tried to use the same media's inventions for your own ends ie calling Murray nasty which, incidentally, even the media BS didn't stoop to.

Admit what he did was very teen and spoiled brat?

I write everyday stuff I feel like. Some day good, someday crap.

I advise you to not worry about what others write here too much.

You are like a fly hitting the window all day. Find the open door man, go get some fresh air.

There you go again? Unfounded nonsense. So he is a teen and a spoiled brat because of what exactly?

Yes write away but a word of warning whilst posting unfounded and spurious comments here may go unpunished I'd advise against getting into such a bad habit because in other fields of life it will get you into legal trouble.

No need for fresh air but need time away from reading such pathetic comments me thinks.   

Hahaha. Legal trouble. Im dying here.

Lets watch Fed together and chill pappi.

Jahu wrote:Admit what he did was very teen and spoiled brat?

I write everyday stuff I feel like. Some day good, someday crap.

I advise you to not worry about what others write here too much.

You are like a fly hitting the window all day. Find the open door man, go get some fresh air.

Trouble is you don't know what the facts are both yet you want act as judge and jury on what are just assumptions. As I pointed out yesterday I had read an article saying that on previous days Kim had driven him to the tournament this year but he got an official car back.

Calder, you are right, none of us know the truth, but I'm letting CC have a go on me.

I have respect for his age.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Murray not the most natural or fluid of players or even the most competitive of players.

What he was in the early days was a thinker and good tactician. That's what I liked in his game. Someone who could think their way past an opponent. Sadly he traded that in.

Yep.

The fitness thing didn't have to mean that either, but he went down that attritional tennis route. He won things with it but I always remember that at Wimbledon 2012 it was he who wilted physically, not Federer - which imo was because Federer always had the initiate in rallies and ran him ragged. The old Andy, but fitter, might have employed a few smarter tricks.

For two sets of that final Murray dictated with his forehand and Fed did the majority of the running. It looked very similar to the Olympic final a few weeks later. It was a fairly easy workout. However, after Murray made those two terrible errors on easy backhands to put him in charge of set 2 it seemed to galvanise Roger who produced some insane play to win set 2. After that Murray didn't look the same player - his forehand lost a lot of its bite and Roger in contrast got stronger. Andy did then do a lot of running in sets 3 and 4. I still suspect it was more mental dejection than physical effort that took its toll though.

There is no doubt Andy needed to work on his fitness. His natural stamina seems to be a long way off Novak or Rafa or even Fed. However, quite why be abandoned some of the variety - he serve volleyed a lot against Rafa in US 08 for example - I don't understand. A lot of that has been back in the last couple of events but sadly not when really needed in the big matches. His post exit interview was reasonably encouraging as he talked about needing to improve. Hopefully he is talking about the same sort of things rather than just getting fitter.

I remember those first two sets a little differently. In fact I re-watched the final last year and it proved my memory to be true.

They were neck and neck for the first two sets. No one player dominated the rallies. It was pretty much dead even.

I think a lot of Murray fans have got it into their heads that Murray was dominating. I suspect that is because he actually did better than expected in those first two sets and far better than in previous slam finals against Fed. This seems to have left the impression that he was dominating the first two sets. In reality it was pretty much dead even. Nothing whatsoever like the Olympic final where Murray was brilliant right from the start and Fed was flat from start to finish.

Another misconception (no doubt aided by that ridiculous gaff by Sue Barker) was that the momentum swung once the roof came on. Again incorrect. Federer was leading by a game to love in the third set when the rain came. The commentators were saying at the time that it was probably good for Murray to get off court and re-organise. He was already starting to wobble and Fed was buoyed by the stunning finish to set two.

As for Murray and the future - well he has already talked about getting back to Miami and working on his fitness; so I think we know which route he's going to continue to go down.

TBH I don't blame him. The conditions are not conducive to shot making. They are generally slow across the tour. You pretty much have to grind out victories and that requires incredible fitness. Federer has the most potent FH in the history of the sport but even he really struggles now to hit through the majority of the courts. Put him on a fast court like Dubai and he can still hit winners for fun.

Sadly the conditions favour attritional baseline tennis and to be successful in that you need to incredibly fit. Andy's not stupid. He knows this better than all of us.

My impression was that both looked very nervous in the 1st set and it could have gone either way. The second set I thought Murray was on top and was dictating more of the rallies than vice versa until his errors and Fed's brilliance at the rnd of the set. What I certainly did not see was Murray scrambling around for two sets tiring himself out whilst Fed swatted the ball one way or the other.

Agree about the roof. That made no difference. The die was cast mentally for both players at the end of set 2.

He does need to work on his fitness though. He isn't as fit as normal - understandable due to no winter training. However, he has also talked about his game standing still and how he needs to make improvements which I took to be tennis skills related not fitness.

As for the tour, I can't ever remember a match where Murray has used serve volley as a change up tactic and got killed doing it. At RG on a slow court he was blitzing returns from well inside the baseline. Its those sorts of things he needs to implement into his game. Adding variety and looking to get forwards will work on any surface for him.

Perhaps.

In any case, I really don't buy this theory that if Andy somehow reverts back to being coy and cute it's gonna make him more successful.

Does anyone really think those tactics are gonna work against Rafa, Roger and even Novak? I doubt it very much. The only caveat I would add to that is that perhaps he could play a bit more at the forecourt, but only as an occasional change up. The way federer sometimes does. We know he has good hands; he could use them a bit more. But aside from that what else can he realistically do? Throw junk balls at them a la Dolgo and Tomic? They'll eat him alive.

The conditions dictate the type of tennis that is successful more than anything else. If Sampras was playing today he'd be predominantly a baseliner, not a suicidal net rusher. Because that's the game that is likely to succeed. And moreover you need to be something of a counter puncher, and someone who's prepared to play long attritional rallies.

Federer is the only truly attacking baseliner from the top four - and that's because he grew up in faster conditions and learned to play that way.

OOps looks like overlapping posts - or where you copying me?   

I don't think it's a case of cute and coy bringing success, but changing the rythym of the game. In his early years as mentioned it worked against Federer as the H2H proved that.

However I have to agree that conditions no longer favour the wily player. Especially on grass.

emancipator wrote:I remember those first two sets a little differently. In fact I re-watched the final last year and it proved my memory to be true.

They were neck and neck for the first two sets. No one player dominated the rallies. It was pretty much dead even.

I think a lot of Murray fans have got it into their heads that Murray was dominating. I suspect that is because he actually did better than expected in those first two sets and far better than in previous slam finals against Fed. This seems to have left the impression that he was dominating the first two sets. In reality it was pretty much dead even. Nothing whatsoever like the Olympic final where Murray was brilliant right from the start and Fed was flat from start to finish.

Another misconception (no doubt aided by that ridiculous gaff by Sue Barker) was that the momentum swung once the roof came on. Again incorrect. Federer was leading by a game to love in the third set when the rain came. The commentators were saying at the time that it was probably good for Murray to get off court and re-organise. He was already starting to wobble and Fed was buoyed by the stunning finish to set two.

Being a bit pedantic here but I thought it was 1-1 with Federer leading 40-0 on serve in the third game.

I don't think Murray losing a set made him look leaden in the last two. I remember in that massive game in the third he put everything into it and looked shattered at points. After that it was relatively straightforward.

In that one game alone he ran almost sets worth. Federer didn't. Many of Murray's points were service winners or similar.

While others are taking it off their chest, others are taking their clothes off.

https://twitter.com/ESPNMag/status/481060534314606593/photo/1

I demand Ivanovic!!!

Okay so Andy wilted against Roger. Hardly a crime, a lot of people wilt against Roger, the guy is remarkably fit. I know a lot people don't want to admit it, but Roger works just as hard on the physical aspect of the game as anyone.

Andy did play a slightly listless match against Dimi, but a lot of it was due to facing a guy who's probably just more talented. Djokovic needed no shortage of luck to squeak past the guy for the loss of one set. I just think Andy had an off day, compounded by a horror serving day. Too early for an inquisition. I do though, hope Andy can find some form before New York, could be a nightmare 9-16 seeding.

kingraf, doing his bit to soothe the situation of this thread. Quite un-King like  

I'm not sure describing Dimitrov as "just more talented" than Murray is the ideal way to sooth the situation...

The AO 2010 and W 2012 Federer v Murray matches are very similar. The O 2012 is a different cattle of fish, because of the 19-17 Del Potro third set earlier between him and Federer.

Its odd that its Murray who played three sets the day before the Olympic final and yet it was apparently Fed who was tired. The Olympic final was very similar to their match a few months later in Shanghai and the Oz Open SF 13.

BS - I genuinely believe it. It's not a knock on Murray, but Dimi has serious tools in his shed.