Murrays strange on-court behaviour

by bogbrush Sun Nov 22, 2015 5:35 pm

I really don't understand what Andy Murray is up to on court. As the article in today's Telegraph makes clear, Murray directs serious abuse towards his support, but he's going this because he is underperforming.

I'd get it if he directed the abuse to himself, or if he looked to them apologetically, or for support... but directing abuse towards someone because you yourself are not doing your job is very odd.

Interesting that Lendl made it clear from the start that it wouldn't happen, and he complied. As I've thought many times, Murray has suffered by not having a good father at home. A boy needs a strong father to teach him how to behave as a man.

By Simon Briggs
The strange case of Andy Murray’s empty player’s box grew more intriguing yesterday, after it emerged that a conversation had been held before the US Open, in which his coaches and backroom staff objected to the amount of abuse directed at them during matches.
On Friday night, a band of nine Murray followers – who included coach Jonas Bjorkman, fitness trainer Matt Little, wife Kim and Davis Cup captain Leon Smith – were spotted sitting in the high balcony above the court rather than in the usual seats almost within touching distance of the players.
After the match, Murray said: “I just felt like sometimes when the box is extremely close to the court, I sometimes can find that a distraction. So I thought it would be better to have them sit a bit further away from the court.”
Yet the feeling may have been mutual, after Murray had unleashed a number of angry diatribes during the straight-sets defeat by Rafael Nadal on Wednesday. Against Stan Wawrinka on Friday, his behaviour remained more controlled for most of the evening. But when things began to get away from him in the second set, he could be seen ranting in the direction of his old friend Ross Hutchins, who now works for the Association of Tennis Professionals, and has his own space at courtside.
If the two seasons that Murray spent working with Ivan Lendl represent the high-water mark of his career, it is worth noting that Lendl laid down a marker at the very start, saying that he would not sit there and take any backchat from his charge.
In the words of sports psychologist Don Macpherson: “When Murray looks up at his team and his monkey mind is just about to shout abuse, he suddenly sees the brooding, unsmiling Lendl, and the monkey backs down every time … out of respect.”
The more genial figure of Bjorkman, who has coached Murray through the second half of 2015, does not quite convey the same presence.
On one occasion in early August, as Murray lost in the Citi Open’s first round, he could be heard yelling: “If you don’t know which way he’s going to serve, don’t bluff it.”

by HM Murdock Sun Nov 22, 2015 7:11 pm

I think Murray has crossed a line over the last year or so.

He's reached a point where he seems more than angry. He seems crazy.

Taking motivational notes on court does not suggest someone at ease.

The strange thing is that off-court he seems like a balanced, reasonable person. A nice guy.

The heat of competition seems to drive him a bit mad.

He spoke a bit about it on the BBC this week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/34864432

by Guest Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:14 pm

I have always thought of it as just empty ranting. I don't for a second believe that element of his behaviour isn't discussed off court. I don't think that it was only Lendl's discipline alone, I think Lendl is the only coach Murray has had that he has 'needed' which was so key to their working relationship.

I always relate Murray to a guy I played football with called Gunny. Always ranting, swearing and yelling at us when he himself played crap. No-one said anything in retaliation because we knew the frustration really lie with himself for not being at his best and after a rant he would knuckle down and up his levels. It never always worked, but you knew he needed to.

I don't find it strange, I just find it frustrating that an improvement in his play doesn't come as a result in a match when he is playing poorly. The whole Zen trance he had going under Lendl worked wonders. Shame he doesn't revert to that headspace.

by HM Murdock Sun Nov 22, 2015 10:51 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:I don't find it strange, I just find it frustrating that an improvement in his play doesn't come as a result in a match when he is playing poorly.

That's the key point.

I don't like the way that Djokovic behaves on court sometimes but I can see that it usually does him good. He'll go beserk for a couple of minutes, but that seems to let the frustration out and he usually refocuses and improves.

Andy tends to get himself stuck in a downward spiral when he starts ranting.

by Guest Sun Nov 22, 2015 11:02 pm

HM Murdock wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:I don't find it strange, I just find it frustrating that an improvement in his play doesn't come as a result in a match when he is playing poorly.
That's the key point.

I don't like the way that Djokovic behaves on court sometimes but I can see that it usually does him good. He'll go beserk for a couple of minutes, but that seems to let the frustration out and he usually refocuses and improves.

Andy tends to get himself stuck in a downward spiral when he starts ranting.

Case in point Murray last Wimbledon against Dimitrov, went downhill fast and didn't halt it. Djokovic against Federer Wimbledon this year lost the second set, went mad and came out and blew Federer off the court.

Shows what can be done with the energy with the right approach.

by Josiah Maiestas Sun Nov 22, 2015 11:07 pm

He rants at himself and his team partly to put off his opponent and lot of the time it works.

I really think that he watches too many videos of McEnroe and tries to emulate him. Sometimes you have to vent out he does it even when he is outplayed, not just when he hits a bad bh.

by CAS Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:12 am

"The only place I ever get really frustrated and wound up is on the tennis court.

I think a lot of that is the result of all the time and effort that I've put into it over so many years. I've been a full-time tennis player for pretty much half my life and the frustration can come through when I'm not winning or playing as well as I would like, given the amount of effort."

I think he tries so hard to keep up with the big 3 he gets upset that he quiet can't manage it, it must be tough when you beat everyone else pretty handily and clearly better than the rest of the tour but have these 3 other guys who belittle his achievements with their greatness

by sirfredperry Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:39 am

I don't think he rants to put off his opponent, nor do I think he's ever going to change. Some guys wear their heart on their sleeve. Some - like Borg - don't.

by **laverfan** Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:00 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:The whole Zen trance he had going under Lendl worked wonders. Shame he doesn't revert to that headspace.

It is painful. comical and absurd to watch the descent into oblivion.

Vallverdu has done a good job with Berdych, so the lack of progress under Vallverdu also seems to belong squarely at Murray's feet. The lack of respect for his own employees/staff is rather puerile. Lendl's achievements also contributed to Murray keeping a stiff upper lip in his presence.

Perhaps he needs a Connors or a McEnroe in his box.

by Calder106 Mon Nov 23, 2015 1:55 am

Not sure what you think Vallverdu has done for Berdych. Don't see him as any better than he was last year and Murray has beaten Berdych pretty comfortably 3 times this year.

Getting back to Murray though. It is frustrating watching him waste so much energy ranting on and ruining his concentration. I was watching on BBC this week and Henman was quite critical, correctly IMO, of the constant dialogue he was having with his box at courtside. He said there was no way he could be concentrating properly on the next point while he was doing that. Interestingly he did suggest during the Nadal match that it may be an idea if his team were further away for the court. Maybe someone heard that and suggested trying it. Who knows.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have a rant sometimes, most players do when not playing well. He does however prolong it and his performance drops even more. So it doesn't do him any good.

by YvonneT Mon Nov 23, 2015 2:22 am

What's interesting from the Telegraph article is that someone in the team is prepared to speak to press about it (presumably off the record). Last time that happened, at this time last year, Vallverdu and Green were gone before the offseason even began. I wouldn't be surprised if this heralds a change again, though it is still to be seen what happens with Mauresmo anyway.

I don't completely go with the conventional analysis about this ranting not happening with Lendl. It absolutely did - 2 sets down to Verdsaco at Wimbledon he went absolutely mental towards his box, when the lost to Wawrinka at the US Open he was having a full-on meltdown. But I agree that he respected Lendl and probably tried harder to cut it out. But he seems to have a lot of respect for Mauresmo and that doesn't keep the craziness in check.

I also don't think it's reasonable to make any assumptions about his father based on these on-court rantings.

I wish he would be able to get the right mental attitude on court - it would help more than just the ranting at the box thing. But he has tried sports psychologists before without much result, so sadly the only way I see a major change arising is if he went in with a more defeatist attitude to these big matches. (Though even if he were to just vent at himself and not toward the box that would at least look less ugly).

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 2:27 am

laverfan wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:The whole Zen trance he had going under Lendl worked wonders. Shame he doesn't revert to that headspace.

It is painful. comical and absurd to watch the descent into oblivion.

Vallverdu has done a good job with Berdych, so the lack of progress under Vallverdu also seems to belong squarely at Murray's feet. The lack of respect for his own employees/staff is rather puerile. Lendl's achievements also contributed to Murray keeping a stiff upper lip in his presence.

Perhaps he needs a Connors or a McEnroe in his box.

I think if he could find the self discipline to find the frame of mind that served him so well under Lendl, he might find the results much more positive.

by Calder106 Mon Nov 23, 2015 2:43 am

I thought he might have found that frame of mind again at Montreal this year. The focus he had in the final set against Djokovic was reminiscent of what he showed in the final set in the USO 2012. It was like o.k. you have got back level but there is no way I am losing this. Total concentration and job done. Pity he can't display that more consistently.

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:02 am

I saw this comedy film about a US presidential election. When the results came in the losing candidate started crying. Then while he was stilling crying he lined up his campaign manager and campaign team into single file, then had then walk slowly towards him, where upon he proceeded to punch each and everyone of them in the jaw to knock them out.

When I see Murray ranting and swearing at his coaching team, for some reason I think of that scene.

Murray said when he was a kid he chose tennis as his preferred sport, not because he enjoyed the sport but because he was good at it. He preferred other sports but he wasn't very good at the other sports.

This on court bullying of his team might work for him for most opponents (transferring his anger onto his coaching team them proceeding to verbally abuse them - transference) but for the top three and a few others, they just look at Murray and draw quiet encouragement from it.

by paulcz Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:52 am

Nore Staat wrote:I saw this comedy film about a US presidential election. When the results came in the losing candidate started crying. Then while he was stilling crying he lined up his campaign manager and campaign team into single file, then had then walk slowly towards him, where upon he proceeded to punch each and everyone of them in the jaw to knock them out.

When I see Murray ranting and swearing at his coaching team, for some reason I think of that scene.

Murray said when he was a kid he chose tennis as his preferred sport, not because he enjoyed the sport but because he was good at it. He preferred other sports but he wasn't very good at the other sports.

This on court bullying of his team might work for him for most opponents (transferring his anger onto his coaching team them proceeding to verbally abuse them - transference) but for the top three and a few others, they just look at Murray and draw quiet encouragement from it.

Yes NS, the ranting of Murray is a good material to make a script also in a sport comedy. Can you remember what is the name of the film about the US election.

by hawkeye Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:08 am

It's of less importance what effect Murray's behavior has on his own game than the damage it does to the ATP's and ITF's product along with the distracting and disruptive effect it has on his opponents. Audible obscenities, verbal abuse (no matter who it is directed at) and anything else that constitutes disruptive play are classed as code violations and should be penalized by a warning followed on any subsequent violations according to the point penalty scheme. I believe Murray should be penalized as per the rule book.

If Murray had been penalized for his disruptive play from the outset he would have cut this behavior at the beginning of his career. How this would have affected his performance is difficult to judge but at the very least he will have been saved from looking back at his matches with embarrassment.

by Henman Bill Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:12 am

When you're losing, it's more of an issue.

Up to 2011, everyone said Murray won't win a slam until he sorts out his on court behaviour.

Then he moaned and chit-chatted all his way to US Open 2012 triumph just as usual. No articles then about how everyone had called it wrong.

You do feel occcasionally his behaviour is a bit immature compared to the big three.

by temporary21 Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:43 am

Looks irritable... almost as if hes got a lot more going on in his outside life nowadays

Hes always let it out than let it bottle, maybe hes thinking about Kim and such a lot more

by YvonneT Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:18 am

Henman Bill wrote:Up to 2011, everyone said Murray won't win a slam until he sorts out his on court behaviour.

Then he moaned and chit-chatted all his way to US Open 2012 triumph just as usual. No articles then about how everyone had called it wrong.

Precisely - except that everyone said they called right, contrary to all evidence. He didn't have a meltdown but he certainly moaned, chatted, ranted and swore.

I'm not trying to justify his behaviour because I don't agree with it - I certainly wouldn't sit in his box and be sworn at. And I would penalise the audible obscenities and if I was a sponsor, I'd want to put in penalties for the worst behaviour. But I do think that suggesting that he is blaming the team for any losses or bullying them is a little OTT.

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:38 am

The thing when you hear his bemoaning or swearing, he isn't singling anyone out but himself. That's why I see it as empty ranting. Would be good if it served a useful purpose.

by YvonneT Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:46 am

Who should he single out then, LK? *#&*%%* Roger!! **&&### Novak!!! *@*#@** Rafa!

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:49 am

As I said he singles himself out.

You tell me who he should single out? I am not the one asking that question.

by YvonneT Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:05 am

I was joking! Yes, it's a rant at himself (it's when it's directed with some aggression at the box that I don't like it).

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:09 am

I can only think they must find some amusement when their in his eyeline. I imagine when he does rant they think "Well fecking do something about then!"

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:14 am

paulcz wrote:
Nore Staat wrote:I saw this comedy film about a US presidential election. When the results came in the losing candidate started crying. Then while he was stilling crying he lined up his campaign manager and campaign team into single file, then had then walk slowly towards him, where upon he proceeded to punch each and everyone of them in the jaw to knock them out.

When I see Murray ranting and swearing at his coaching team, for some reason I think of that scene.

...

Yes NS, the ranting of Murray is a good material to make a script also in a sport comedy. Can you remember what is the name of the film about the US election.

It's a 2003 Chris Rock film called Head of State. Strangely enough it predicted a black American becoming president. The clip I am thinking of hasn't been uploaded.

by paulcz Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:34 am

Nore Staat wrote:
paulcz wrote:
Nore Staat wrote:I saw this comedy film about a US presidential election. When the results came in the losing candidate started crying. Then while he was stilling crying he lined up his campaign manager and campaign team into single file, then had then walk slowly towards him, where upon he proceeded to punch each and everyone of them in the jaw to knock them out.

When I see Murray ranting and swearing at his coaching team, for some reason I think of that scene.

...

Yes NS, the ranting of Murray is a good material to make a script also in a sport comedy. Can you remember what is the name of the film about the US election.
It's a 2003 Chris Rock film called Head of State. Strangely enough it predicted a black American becoming president. The clip I am thinking of hasn't been uploaded.

Thanks NS, surely I will watch it. It is my cup of tea. It looks that the director of that film had a hunch about a new president.

by Jahu Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:43 am

Nore Staat wrote:It's a 2003 Chris Rock film called Head of State. Strangely enough it predicted a black American becoming president. The clip I am thinking of hasn't been uploaded.

Nore, I think that honor belongs to President David Palmer from 24 (2001) Smile

by Jahu Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:50 am

Regarding Andy's behaviour, Judy wrote a piece for Guardian yesterday:

"From a very young age, Andy was very competitive. He was one of those kids who would get really upset if he lost a game of Snap or a board game. He’d be the one who would tip the board up and strop and sulk. I think it came from having an older brother who was better than him at everything, simply because he was older. Andy always wanted to beat Jamie".

So since early Andy has been a spoiled kid, add to that a father missing round, and up to a degree it's understandable, still not acceptable since he won his GS, should get some psycho-therapy séances, I recommend Dr. Frasier Crane Smile

by socal1976 Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:15 pm

I have never been too hard on Andy as I think he is a major talent and generally has his heart and head in the right place. But his own box including his wife ditching the players box to get away from his rants is very disconcerting. I mean that is a pretty public rebuke by all the people who either love you or work for you. When your wife , friends, and employees don't won't to be near you well you maybe acting like an ahole.

I am sure he is directing it at himself but also I am sure that even so it becomes tedious and irritating for the people who care about him.

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:10 pm

Thanks for your two recent posts Jahu Smile

. The Murray psychology piece is interesting. I know there are supposed to be psychological types depending on whether someone is an only child, the eldest child, the middle child, the youngest child. Then whether you have two parents or a single parent. Interesting about the strop / sulk attitude as it clearly emerges when Murray is placed under intense pressure.

Sometimes he just glazes over and accepts his punishment - I think that normally occurs when he realises there is nothing he can do, the other player being just far too good. He strops and sulks when he thinks for some reason he could have performed better or lady luck is favouring the opponent or that he "should" be beating his opponent because his opponent is lower ranked or something.

by HM Murdock Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:57 pm

I think Andy and Novak are obsessive in their preparation in a way that Roger and Rafa aren't.

I get the impression with Roger and Rafa that they work blooming hard but in a general way i.e. get themselves fit and then work on their tennis skills.

They don't (as far as I know) only drink room temperature water and check the colour of their urine like Novak or engage in brutal sessions on Christmas day like Andy.

For Andy and Novak, I imagine it drives them a bit crazy when they obsess over every detail they can possibly control in their preparation but then find themselves in a match situation where a player is taking control away from them.

On a vaguely related note, Andy put a picture on social media yesterday of him doing a session on the Versaclimber to prepare for DC.

I found myself wondering what tennis skills or movements this was developing.

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:15 pm

I think what makes it so compelling is that you'd think that once he had got that out of his system, that he could slightly relax. He seems to get more peed off as matches go by.

For athletes who exhibit the same traits I would normally say the process was:

Identify you're playing crap - Have a rant - Play better.

In Andy's case it's:

Identify you're playing crap - Have a rant - Still play crap - Rant even more.

by Tennisfan Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:35 pm

As regards the Versaclimber it is to build up strength and stamina - which I suspect are qualities vitally needed by all tennis players. And in fairness to Murray he did also say he had been practising on court as well. He couldn't be at the position he is as World end No 2 if he did not do these things. Why criticise Murray for doing them?

This is the thing though. Whatever he does or achieves is never respected. Look at David Lloyd this week slagging him off for not contributing enough to British tennis - this just a few days before the DC Final. It's no wonder he finds the pressures too much to cope with at times.

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:45 pm

Tennisfan wrote:As regards the Versaclimber it is to build up strength and stamina - which I suspect are qualities vitally needed by all tennis players. And in fairness to Murray he did also say he had been practising on court as well. He couldn't be at the position he is as World end No 2 if he did not do these things. Why criticise Murray for doing them?

This is the thing though. Whatever he does or achieves is never respected. Look at David Lloyd this week slagging him off for not contributing enough to British tennis - this just a few days before the DC Final. It's no wonder he finds the pressures too much to cope with at times.

Point taken. It is easy to get carried away with the criticism. I think it is fair to debate his on-court behaviour and be fairly critical of this aspect. It is also fair to discuss his training methods. But we must remember Murray is only consistently bettered (battered? - sorry just a little joke) by three all time greats of the sport: Federer (17 slams), Nadal (14 slams), Djokovic (10 slams & 4 consecutive WTF titles).

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:46 pm

I think it was another poster who pointed out he had been practising on a clay court prior to the event. Can't say that it is the best way to prepare for a HC event, but I can't blame him when he is forced into a event I think he would otherwise skip.

As for Lloyd. I thought he would let go of his displeasure towards the LTA. How he can say Murray hasn't contributed is an absolute joke!

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:47 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think it was another poster who pointed out he had been practising on a clay court prior to the event. Can't say that it is the best way to prepare for a HC event, but I can't blame him when he is forced into a event I think he would otherwise skip.

As for Lloyd. I thought he would let go of his displeasure towards the LTA. How he can say Murray hasn't contributed is an absolute joke!

He has to prepare for the DTC also - he did the WTF so he wouldn't receive any financial penalties etc.

by HM Murdock Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:49 pm

Tennisfan wrote:As regards the Versaclimber it is to build up strength and stamina - which I suspect are qualities vitally needed by all tennis players. And in fairness to Murray he did also say he had been practising on court as well. He couldn't be at the position he is as World end No 2 if he did not do these things. Why criticise Murray for doing them?

It invites criticism when he has a track record of talking lots about his fitness work but goes years without any improvement in his 2nd serve.

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:55 pm

Nore Staat wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:I think it was another poster who pointed out he had been practising on a clay court prior to the event. Can't say that it is the best way to prepare for a HC event, but I can't blame him when he is forced into a event I think he would otherwise skip.

As for Lloyd. I thought he would let go of his displeasure towards the LTA. How he can say Murray hasn't contributed is an absolute joke!
He has to prepare for the DTC also - he did the WTF so he wouldn't receive any financial penalties etc.

Oh I know that. I am just observing that it isn't the best preparation.

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:08 pm

LKV2 - okay.

And Murdoch has a point - clear weaknesses in Murray's game are well known by us and his opponents. Murray's second serve can be feebler than a top females second serve at times (I am thinking of Ms Williams as an example).

by Tennisfan Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:53 pm

And yet despite these 'clear weaknesses' he has won 69 matches this year and ends the year at world number 2!
I prefer to look at the positives in these achievements than the negatives all the time.

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:07 pm

The 2nd serve argument, it depends how many of his losses can be attributed to that area of his game. If anything I think if his first serve is clicking, he picks up a lot of cheap points. If that percentage and speed is more consistent he could easily have won more.

by HM Murdock Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:38 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:The 2nd serve argument, it depends how many of his losses can be attributed to that area of his game. If anything I think if his first serve is clicking, he picks up a lot of cheap points. If that percentage and speed is more consistent he could easily have won more.

It's not so much how many losses as which losses.

Andy can get to the semi finals pretty much an autopilot. Yet he's run into Djokovic 6 times this season, all in SFs or finals, and lost 5 of them, in no small part to Djokovic destroying the Murray 2nd serve.

If he could improve his 2nd serve enough to perhaps turn a couple of those losses into victories, then Andy is winning more titles, possibly even slam titles.

I look at players like Djokovic and Federer and I can clearly see they have tried to address their relative weaknesses.

Djokovic had an adequate 2nd serve to begin with but he has worked on it and it's a real weapon now. His 2nd serve stats this season are ridiculous.

And yet Andy had a 2nd serve which was very poor and it remains very poor. I see no improvement at all.

In fact, I'd be interested to hear from the Murray fans if there's any area of the game in which they think he is better today than he was 3 years ago.

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:59 pm

Again Murdock analysis seems spot on, following on from LVK2 comment.

To identify areas for improvement in Murray's game one needs to focus on the losses and identify the causes of those loses.

A weak to very weak second serve is one of the causes of his losses. Often this is connected to a low first serve percentage. Once the weakness is identified one would expect the player to go away and work on it so that it was no longer a weakness.

The fact that Murray won two grand slam titles when he was under the Lendl regime suggests that being satisfied with fourth best is not enough for someone of Murray's potential talent.

by Guest Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:20 pm

HM Murdock wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:The 2nd serve argument, it depends how many of his losses can be attributed to that area of his game. If anything I think if his first serve is clicking, he picks up a lot of cheap points. If that percentage and speed is more consistent he could easily have won more.
It's not so much how many losses as which losses.

Andy can get to the semi finals pretty much an autopilot. Yet he's run into Djokovic 6 times this season, all in SFs or finals, and lost 5 of them, in no small part to Djokovic destroying the Murray 2nd serve.

If he could improve his 2nd serve enough to perhaps turn a couple of those losses into victories, then Andy is winning more titles, possibly even slam titles.

I look at players like Djokovic and Federer and I can clearly see they have tried to address their relative weaknesses.

Djokovic had an adequate 2nd serve to begin with but he has worked on it and it's a real weapon now. His 2nd serve stats this season are ridiculous.

And yet Andy had a 2nd serve which was very poor and it remains very poor. I see no improvement at all.

In fact, I'd be interested to hear from the Murray fans if there's any area of the game in which they think he is better today than he was 3 years ago.

Didn't Andy top the 2nd serve points won one year? Can't remember when. CC will know as I remember he championed such a strange occurrence.

Djokovic smashes any serve! I think that's why I emphasise that the first serve, especially when Andy is concerned is so important. Andy gets around the 130mph mark which just about troubles Novak from producing a return with purchase.

I don't see Andy addressing his 2nd serve at any stage. It's more of a speed issue and with his risk adverse nature it seems he is not comfortable trying for the 90mph bracket.

Plus we are talking losses to Djokovic. I think if anything the weakness lies within the passiveness all too often.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:52 am

I don't get threads like these.

Any true tennis fan who has watched Murray since his formative years have seen the mental flaws where his mind wanders and he berates himself and loses an edge in the psychological warfare that goes on in tennis matches. I have said it many times that he loses many key matches in the mind as belief evaporates and in turn erodes the confidence. Of course we all know about the legendary second serve (or lack of it) but is that anything to do with technique or more to do with the entrained mindset of him?

If Andy keeps his emotions and mental lapses in check he can compete with the very best but more often than not he falls off the mental Cliff and that always proves fatal against the legends of the sport such as Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

On another note this year emphasises why I tend not to put overly much stock in the rankings. This is the first time Andy will end a year No.2 yet I recall far better years for him. I think of our debates on here and look at the Hewitt/Murray comparisons. Look at their careers and Murray has achieved much more in terms of longevity in big title wins and had better years (consistentlt) than Hewitt yet Hewitt has monstrously more years at number one. That tells me ranking means naff all or Hewitt plied his trade in an age with far less consistent competitors.

by Haddie-nuff Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:12 am

Well CC my view about Andy I think you will agree has never changed over the years.. a great player marred by his inability to control his emotions on court. Allowing himself to be distracted and distracting himself... In short his own worst enemy. Wink

by Guest Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:33 am

CC - in that case Murray should have been able to identify his weakness in the crunch games as mental and bring in a sports psychiatrist. Maybe Lendl was the equivalent of a sports psychiatrist - he certainly got Murray to focus and prepared him to drive through the pain.

So Craig your suggestion is there is nothing wrong with Murray's serve because his first serve is so good ... that the second serve doesn't require a different technique to the first - it could be a first serve with 10 mph taking off it - or some sort of spin serve. The fact he is no good at second serves is because you can't train for it - it's purely a mental issue in tight games and Murray is a mental midget and basically can't hack it.

So sports psychiatrist and to work on removing his fear in the second serve pressure environment.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:40 am

Yes NS but stubbornness perhaps or poor advice or lack of it from those close to him perhaps have prevented that. Or sometimes psychological flaws cannot be ironed out even through psychology.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:45 am

As for the rest of your post I never said anything about his first serve. All I said was his weak second serve could quite possibly be down to mental side as in gets to conscientious about doubling and goes too safe. And I wouldn't call him a mental midget just because he falls short mentally against mental giants of the game especially when you look at how few matches he has lost this year to players outside the very top players.

by hawkeye Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:05 am

Jahu wrote:Regarding Andy's behaviour, Judy wrote a piece for Guardian yesterday:

"From a very young age, Andy was very competitive. He was one of those kids who would get really upset if he lost a game of Snap or a board game. He’d be the one who would tip the board up and strop and sulk. I think it came from having an older brother who was better than him at everything, simply because he was older. Andy always wanted to beat Jamie".

That's interesting. It's not unusual for children to have a strop when they lose but once they learn through experience that it's not acceptable they usually grow out if it pretty quickly. Murray is still surrounded by people who think this sort of behavior is acceptable. What an odd life it is to be surrounded by an entourage who allow you to scream abuse at them in public for their own failings and adoring fans who think it's an acceptable way for a grown man to behave. Murray perhaps is a victim in part of his own circumstances.

Haddie-nuff wrote: Allowing himself to be distracted and distracting himself... In short his own worst enemy.

Do Murray's rants affect his own game? I'm not sure but even if they did that is of less importance to how much of a turn off they are to viewers. Commentators are always apologizing on his behalf but Murray himself as far as I know has never apologized. His rants must also distract his opponents. In his match with Nadal at the WTF after almost every point he was swearing and abusing his team. I've never seen or heard anything like it on a tennis court. How can that not be distracting to play against?

Perhaps for the benefit of Murray fans who believe his game would improve without the rants and his opponents and viewers who find them distracting and unpleasant Umpires should get tough with him and issue code violations strictly according to the rule book. I feel sure that his on court behavior would improve drastically. It would also potentially save Murray some cash because he wouldn't have to hire a multiple slam winner to sit court side and give him stern looks.

by Sponsored content