Amazing stat I read...

Murray is 2/25 against top 5 since April 2013!

This will not help Murray win another slam.

simple question: why is it so low?

The stat is quite some way wrong I would say.

Yes it is, I checked and totted it up, it's 7/22.
So not as bad but not amazing either... <33%

However it's worse against Fed / Djokovic / Nadal / Wawrinka since start of 2013. Specifically, its
Nadal: 1/4
Stan: 0/3
Federer: 1/5
Djokovic: 2/12
Total: 4/24

His record against these guys used to be much better...so what's changed?

BS thinks Murray is better than ever, I don't know his results were better 2 and 3 years ago especially in comparison to the other guys who have won more than one slam, the big 5 if you will. To me I think he hasn't been the same since his back surgery. I mean numbers wise and mph wise he hasn't lost much on serve if anything he has gotten better. I think his back is probably a flare up issue that causes him to lose both preparation time and also causes him to have days maybe where he doesn't move and explode quite as crisply and maybe that is the back. Since back injury days might it be that Murray has more days he can't move or play as well (bad days) and maybe he has lost half a step in movement and or fitness?

I am left with questions myself as to why he plays so much worse against the top competitors and why he isn't winning slams like 2013 period.

We should also include parenthood and marriage into the Murray equation. Coaching is another area which needs to be factored in.

Murray's record against the top three in grand slams has never been good apart from a short blip when he was with Lendl.

Year / Slam / Winner / Score
Federer
2015   Wimbledon Federer 75 75 64
2014   Australian  Federer   63 64 67 63
2013   Australian Murray   64 67 63 67 62
2012   Wimbledon  Federer  46 75 63 64
2010   Australian Federer   63 64 76
2008    US Open Federer  62 75 62  
Wins 1/6.  Sets 5/16

Nadal
2014   French Nadal  63 62 61
2011   Wimbledon  Nadal  57 62 62 64
2011   French Nadal  64 75 64
2011   US Open  Nadal 64 62 36 62  
2010   Wimbledon  Nadal  64 76 64
2010   Australian Murray  63 76 30  RET
2008   US Open  Murray   62 76 46 64
2008   Wimbledon  Nadal   63 62 64
2007   Australian Nadal  67 64 46 63 61  
Wins 2/9.  Sets 9/25

Djokovic
2016  Australian Djokovic   61 75 76
2015  French Djokovic   63 63 57 57 61
2015  Australian Djokovic 76 67 63 60
2014   US Open Djokovic  76 67 62 64
2013   Wimbledon  Murray  64 75 64
2013   Australian Djokovic  67 76 63 62
2012   US Open  Murray  76 75 26 36 62
2012   Australian Djokovic  63 36 67 61 75
2011   Australian Djokovic  64 62 63
Wins 2/9.  Sets 13/23

Ivan Lendl demonstrated to the world what he believed when he saw Andy Murray play - that Andy Murray could challenge for the slams against the top three, beat them in the slams, and be a multi-slam winner.  Lendl proved this.  The results also show Murray couldn't do it on his own and highlights the importance of the team to get the best out of the player and the importance of the relationships within that team.

Too many ladies in his life, can't keep them in check

Andy is unfortunate that he is playing at the same time as three potential "Goats" who will all go down in tennis history for various reasons.

The current top player is Novak who seems to be virtually unbeatable - not only has Andy had problems beating him, ask Rafa, he has lost nine out of the last ten meetings with him.

Strong competition indeed.

However he does still have a H2H advantage over the other member Stan!

Miss out USO2011 where Rafa beat Murray in 4 sets in the SF. So its wins 2/9 vs Rafa.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Miss out USO2011 where Rafa beat Murray in 4 sets in the SF. So its wins 2/9 vs Rafa.  

Thanks. It is well known to those that follow Murray that he wasn't part of a top 4 (except when Lendl was driving him): it was a "3 + 1" Era - Murray generally better than the rest but not as good as the top three - although he was potentially as good as them (Lendl proved this).

Don't think his back is an issue any more. Splitting with Lendl has been more significant IMO even though I don't think that was what Murray wanted. Lendl was brought in originally to help him the game plan/concentration/confidence to compete against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic at the sharp end of tournaments. Since Lendl moved on it often looks as if he is not sure how he needs to play them. He can hang in for a while but when it comes to the crucial moments he becomes second best. Don't think that Mauresmo has added anything that was not there before and the ability to concentrate for longer periods of matches has dropped since Lendl left.

As for Wawrinka. IMO Murray needs to be more aggressive and willing to move him about. Otherwise Stan will just wait his time in the rallies and then hit a huge shot which (if it goes in) either wins the point outright or makes it almost certain he will win it.

This is not an indictment of Murray, but after Lendl walked away, Berdych talked to Lendl about solving the same lack of success issue. Lendl pointed to Vallverdu and Berdych has had a bit of success.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/30928690 is another view.

laverfan wrote:This is not an indictment of Murray, but after Lendl walked away, Berdych talked to Lendl about solving the same lack of success issue. Lendl pointed to Vallverdu and Berdych has had a bit of success.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/30928690 is another view.

So according to someone in the inner circle of Ivan Lendl, Murray sacked Lendl because he was unprepared for Lendl to cut back on the travel time.  This is of course a pity.  In the past even the players reduced their schedule by skipping tournaments etc (which they can't do now by dictate of the ATP).  It seems to me that Andy Murray is quite a "needy person" - needing others to devote a certain level of time and attention to him.  His attitude  to his team during matches - if it is not going well he will verbally abuse them, supports this view.  He also felt the need for that top ten notes on how to play against his opponent - which he started using after he had sacked Lendl.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/andy-murrays-motivational-notes-revealed-try-your-best-and-be-good-to-yourself-10052880.html

Andy Murray Match Notes Feb 2015 wrote:1. Be good to yourself
2. Try your best
3. Be intense with your legs
4. Be proactive during points
5. Focus on each point and the process
6. Try to be the one dictating
7. Try to keep him at the baseline, make him move
8. Keep going for your serve
9. Stick to the baseline as much as possible
10. Stay low on passes and use your legs

Berdych's record in 2015 (57 wins 22 losses 2 titles) with Vallverdu as coach is almost identical to his 2014 record (55 wins 22 losses 2 titles) before he came on board. So I don't see a lot of change.

I think Murray often gets compared with Djokovic because of their age and similarities in the way they play. But I feel like in terms of durability and having an injury free career, and fluid motion as well, Djokovic is closer to Federer and Murray more like Nadal. Andy is a bit taller, heavier, and less flexible than Novak. And we see Rafa sort of struggle a bit physically. Now Murray hasn't had the track record of injury Rafa has, but he hasn't been injury free (relatively) like Novak or Roger have been. One of the many things I think that Novak doesn't get credit for is how gracefully and controlled his footwork is on the court. Murray has great speed but you feel like he burns more energy and takes more of a pounding with his movement and bigger frame.

I am not saying he is hitting a physical wall, but I do think Murray is going to struggle more than Djokovic, as he has his whole career with chronic injuries. I can certainly see Lendl's loss as playing a part in how his results have dipped. I mean we see that Becker and Lendl have both helped their charges and Murray has lost his big name coach. Plus Dani leaving the camp with his physio may have also unstabilized things.

But I do think Murray will hit the wall a bit faster than Novak as he seems to strain himself more on the court than Djokovic and he is bigger and less flexible. Furthermore, he hasn't been as relatively injury free as Novak or Roger while not as injury prone as Nadal.

Andy is going through a mid-career crisis. Baby. wife. Chucking balls at umpires. Mild accusations of fellow players doping. Champion of women's tennis. His head's gone

socal1976 wrote:I think Murray often gets compared with Djokovic because of their age and similarities in the way they play. But I feel like in terms of durability and having an injury free career, and fluid motion as well, Djokovic is closer to Federer and Murray more like Nadal. Andy is a bit taller, heavier, and less flexible than Novak. And we see Rafa sort of struggle a bit physically. Now Murray hasn't had the track record of injury Rafa has, but he hasn't been injury free (relatively) like Novak or Roger have been. One of the many things I think that Novak doesn't get credit for is how gracefully and controlled his footwork is on the court. Murray has great speed but you feel like he burns more energy and takes more of a pounding with his movement and bigger frame.

I am not saying he is hitting a physical wall, but I do think Murray is going to struggle more than Djokovic, as he has his whole career with chronic injuries. I can certainly see Lendl's loss as playing a part in how his results have dipped. I mean we see that Becker and Lendl have both helped their charges and Murray has lost his big name coach. Plus Dani leaving the camp with his physio may have also unstabilized things.

But I do think Murray will hit the wall a bit faster than Novak as he seems to strain himself more on the court than Djokovic and he is bigger and less flexible. Furthermore, he hasn't been as relatively injury free as Novak or Roger while not as injury prone as Nadal.

Up until the end of 2010 there was not much between them and they had sat at around 3 & 4 in the rankings for a couple of years and h2h was close. So it was easy to compare them. However Novak really moved up a gear in 2011 and although he had a couple of very slight dips and Murray stepping it up a bit during the Lendl times has been superior since then. I agree that Andy is not as graceful on court as Novak. Therefore more likely to pick up injuries. Without Dani and Jez Andy actually had a pretty good 2015. Yes he lost to Anderson at the USO but outside of that it was Novak and Roger who were the only ones to beat him at the Slams and Masters 1000's (I think that is correct). Which takes us round the circle to the original post.

Calder106 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think Murray often gets compared with Djokovic because of their age and similarities in the way they play. But I feel like in terms of durability and having an injury free career, and fluid motion as well, Djokovic is closer to Federer and Murray more like Nadal. Andy is a bit taller, heavier, and less flexible than Novak. And we see Rafa sort of struggle a bit physically. Now Murray hasn't had the track record of injury Rafa has, but he hasn't been injury free (relatively) like Novak or Roger have been. One of the many things I think that Novak doesn't get credit for is how gracefully and controlled his footwork is on the court. Murray has great speed but you feel like he burns more energy and takes more of a pounding with his movement and bigger frame.

I am not saying he is hitting a physical wall, but I do think Murray is going to struggle more than Djokovic, as he has his whole career with chronic injuries. I can certainly see Lendl's loss as playing a part in how his results have dipped. I mean we see that Becker and Lendl have both helped their charges and Murray has lost his big name coach. Plus Dani leaving the camp with his physio may have also unstabilized things.

But I do think Murray will hit the wall a bit faster than Novak as he seems to strain himself more on the court than Djokovic and he is bigger and less flexible. Furthermore, he hasn't been as relatively injury free as Novak or Roger while not as injury prone as Nadal.

Up until the end of 2010 there was not much between them  and they had sat at around 3 & 4 in the rankings for a couple of years and h2h was close. So it was easy to compare them. However Novak really moved up a gear in 2011 and although he had a couple of very slight dips and Murray stepping it up a bit during the Lendl times has been superior since then.  I agree that Andy is not as graceful on court as Novak. Therefore more likely to pick up injuries. Without Dani and Jez Andy actually had a pretty good 2015. Yes he lost to Anderson at the USO but outside of that it was Novak and Roger who were the only ones to beat him at the Slams and Masters 1000's (I think that is correct). Which takes us round the circle to the original post.  

I think there is something to that in that I don't see Murray being as physically an imposing player as he used to be. To me there just seems to be a little lack of spring in the step. His tantrums are worse, but his general energy level during the points seems to have come down for me. I agree the changes to the team have played a big role. But I also think a valid point and contributing factor can be that he may be finding the physical toll to be an ever more difficult bar to pass.

Even prior to 2011 though remember that Novak pretty much his whole career with a few exceptions has been a guy that has played 70-80 matches a year with I think one or two blips his entire career. And he usually even before 2011 played well in the second half of the season in the indoor stretch, where Murray should do better in those conditions. I am not talking difference in results but difference in durability. I mean Novak and Andy broke on to the tour at the same time and the same age and Novak has 130 more matches than Andy and that is partly down to durability.

I thought they didn't break on to the tour at the same time because Andy had had to rest up due to problems with his bipartite patella?
-Just checked on ATP and Djokovic turned pro in 2003; Andy in 2005.

With regard Lendl, I thought the biggest thing he was able to change in Murray was the performance in slam finals. That was the single last step Andy needed to change - he'd already beaten the "big 3" to win Masters and was regularly reaching slams semis and the occasional final. But he'd freeze at that point. Lendl seemed to be able to get him to play his best - even the first final he lost under his charge to Federer was a far better performance than his previous 3.

I've not checked but I'd guess that his overall record against top 5 was no better in the Lendl years than it was pre-Lendl - but his performance in 2 slam finals has changed the perception of his career entirely.

Lydian & I have commented often on the deterioration of Murrays h2h with Federer; a bizarre development given their ages. We both put it down to the change in his game towards fitness and consistency, away from more creative play.

Perhaps Murray's creative play would fare better vs Djoko's consistency? I doubt Murray could match Djoko's fitness and consistency, so he has to use his creativity to have a chance to beat Djoko.

I think vs Fed, Murray's counterpunching game at its best could still beat Fed, eg Shanghai 2010. He will never match Fed where attacking and creativity are concerned so he has to counterpunch his way to a win.

I always feel the 'old' Murray could play with varied styles - counterpunching, junk balling varying the pace, even S&V. His weakest area was his attacking because of his relatively weaker FH. After Lendl, he seemed to have improved that FH so he was able to attack more frequently.

When he played against Rafa, he's not going to outlast Rafa or win the counterpunching war. He's not going to outsmart Rafa either, so he has to play aggressive attacking tennis the way he did in set 1 of MC SF. Too bad, he couldnt sustain that once Rafa upped his level. Perhaps on quicker courts he may have his chances.

Exactly BB (and you're alluding to similar - variety - BLB), I was wondering when someone might pick up on it. If you consider his results against the 4 other guys up to the end of 2012:

Murray vs Federer: 10-9 (1-5 since!)
Murray vs Djokovic: 7-10 (2-12 since!)
Murray vs Nadal: 6-13 (1-4 since!)
Murray vs Wawrinka: 8-4 (1-3 since!)

Summary vs. the other big 4...
To end 2012: 31-36 (46% win rate)
2013 - 2016:  5-24 (17% win rate)

Up to end of 2012 he was winning roughly 50/50 of his matches against the big 4.
Since then its less than 1 in 5.
That's just 5 wins against the big 4 since the start of 2013...again, just 5 wins in 3 and a quarter seasons...
To me that is a shocking statistic for a player solidly ranked top 3 for the past few years.

Taking on board Lendl was good to start with in that the powerhouse FH approach reaped 2 short-term slams but:
a) the FH focus came at the expense of his other shots (e.g. slice, volleys)
b) it also finished his back off (crunching over-rotated FHs does that...funny how a similar FH approach and back injuries finished Lendl off too...)
c) Lendl essentially killed off Murray's variety, one shocking statistic mid-Lendl period was that Ferrer played 3 x more net pts vs Murray in the 2013 Miami final!!
d) Lendl's approach made Murray even more reliant on muscle/fitness

The stats above don't lie...what gives?

Great post Lydian. Didn't know that the bigger fh took its toll on the back.

Fascinating, it really comes in handy now and again when somebody posts fact-backed arguments.

LuvSports! wrote:Great post Lydian. Didn't know that the bigger fh took its toll on the back.

Neither does Lydian! It's pure speculation. Ironically, the forehand was the shot least affected by the back problems (suggesting it probably wasn't the cause). Where he really seemed to struggle in 2013 was on the cross-court backhand. Murray's up there amongst the very best on that specific shot but, bar on the grass, he was all over the place on it that year. He only really seemed to be fully fit that year in Oz and on the grass.

Lydian likes to argue that Andy has caused his own injury problems, whilst simultaneously arguing that Rafa has just been unlucky. The reality is that the style of play of the top guys is unlikely to have been a big factor in their individual injury issues. It's largely a question of luck and genetics who gets hit hardest.

lydian wrote:... Taking on board Lendl was good to start with in that the powerhouse FH approach reaped 2 short-term slams but:
a) the FH focus came at the expense of his other shots (e.g. slice, volleys)
b) it also finished his back off (crunching over-rotated FHs does that...funny how a similar FH approach and back injuries finished Lendl off too...)
c) Lendl essentially killed off Murray's variety, one shocking statistic mid-Lendl period was that Ferrer played 3 x more net pts vs Murray in the 2013 Miami final!!
d) Lendl's approach made Murray even more reliant on muscle/fitness

The stats above don't lie...what gives?

The Stats don't lie.  So you are saying that Andy Murray was only able to win grand slam titles using Lendl's approach.  Lendl's approach won Murray two grand slam titles and an Olympic gold medal (the stats prove this).  

But Lendl's approach also finished Andy Murray off because his back wasn't strong enough.  Hence Murray is physically no longer able to play the game that won him the grand slam titles and the Olympic gold.  Hence he is no longer competitive against Federer, Nadal, Djokovic in the grand slams.  His grand slam results have returned to the level they were before the Lendl era.

It's not an unreasonable hypothesis; burn bright and short.

bogbrush wrote:It's not an unreasonable hypothesis; burn bright and short.

I can accept the hypothesis.  I just wish that Andy Murray could accept it and enjoy his tennis more.  He has had plenty of success, he is a celebrity, a multi-millionaire.  Just wish he could relax and enjoy his tennis now.

I should say his commitment to the 2015 Davis Cup campaign was fantastic and I am sure he derived a lot of pleasure from that.  Only a matter of time before he is made Sir Andy Murray.  Andy seems to have broken a lot of "70 year old plus" records for British tennis.

LuvSports! wrote:Great post Lydian. Didn't know that the bigger fh took its toll on the back.

It can and it can't. If you're genetically susceptible to back pain then ja. But if you have weak obliques (the engine house for core rotational strength), I'd assume (with no research to back me up) that back pain and eventually dysfunction is probably inevitable. Same cold be said about Murray's serve mechanism without improved core strength though. I'd imagine that without a really strong multifidus and Transversus it was only going to end one way.

Yes NS, Lendl turned Murray into a short term winning machine by focusing on a narrower type of game. But to his longer term detriment. Murray had already been developing the muscle suit since around 2009 but Lendl ruthlessly (and brilliantly) exploited that by concentrating his focus on Murray's FH.

However, and I did some pictorial analysis on here some time back, Murray has an inherent way of playing his FH when stretched wide whereby he overstretches by leaning forwards because his footwork cant match Fed/Nad/Djo. This is his achilles heal, and I reckon Lendl amp'ed this by making Murray drive the FH more from all positions, even out wide. Lendl did the same thing himself...after all he hasnt got a DHBH and wasnt a volleyer either, plus his serve was pretty standard and yet by 28/29 his back was gone. If you lunge for FHs and try to hit powerfully on the stretch then you have to use a lot of lower back/rotation to get the power. Lendl did it and he made Murray do it. Its what players do when they have classically developed FHs like they both had. Whereas other players eg Fed/Nad/Djo have open stance FHs and dont need the extra step outwide to get the power Murray doesnt have that as a natural shot in his technique so he takes an extra step, as Lendl did...and it was ahead of his time in the 80s partly because he developed the power partly because he had to to combat the modern guys like Agassi coming along....so Murray needs to lean out more to play a hard FH that the other 3 play more naturally. This costs Murray his back bending over from 6'3 up with a heavy build. Was the same for Lendl...

BS...Nadal has a congenital foot bone defect...his trainers were adapted to take pressure off but the misalignment caused knee problems - and yes sure he plays a lot of strokes but then so does Djokovic and he's never injured in the legs. Murray's problem is technique/gait...and having a very muscular body compounding that through driving his FH which along with his 2nd serve is not a natural strength for Murray. Lendl sorted it but at great expense to health and base game.

So much negativity.
It must be a miracle how Murray had a pretty good year last year then; and the last time I looked he was number 2 in the world....
But hey, it's Murray, let's not give him any credit for his achievements.

Tennisfan wrote:So much negativity.
It must be a miracle how Murray had a pretty good year last year then; and the last time I looked he was number 2 in the world....
But hey, it's Murray, let's not give him any credit for his achievements.

I'm sure if given the chance a lot of the v2 "Posters" could give him a run for his money on court,as they seem to be experts in the game

Hi Lydian.  Are you a coach or something you seem to have a very good feel for body mechanics and muscle groups.  I'll have to think about what you have written.  Do you have a link to your pictorial analysis thread / comment.  Thanks.

ps to Tennisfan & Sportsfan: analysing in detail a player is not necessarily a  "criticism" of that player.  Here it is in the context of Andy Murray's "place" in tennis, in an era of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

Nore Staat wrote:Hi Lydian.  Are you a coach or something you seem to have a very good feel for body mechanics and muscle groups.  I'll have to think about what you have written.  Do you have a link to your pictorial analysis thread / comment.  Thanks.

ps to Tennisfan & Sportsfan: analysing in detail a player is not necessarily a  "criticism" of that player.  Here it is in the context of Andy Murray's "place" in tennis, in an era of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

There was more than one. The days when Lydian called a 84kg Murray a tank. I remember them well. The good days

It's called discussion guys, by all means throw in counter ideas or arguments. Sure Murray is #2 in the world...good for him...but you don't have to be #2 ranked or indeed #any ranked to analyse and discuss the game. Despite Murray having a great year last year he's still hardly beating anyone in the top 5 so that's a decline from before. My question is why is he doing worse than before? This is supposed to be a guy at the absolute height of his powers but the slams and even Masters seem far off currently...

NS, I never go into my qualies/profession on here but yes I know about coaching, physiology etc. Doesn't make me an expert, but it does give me an informed opinion. Obviously I could just throw in generic comments and cheer how great Murray and every pro player is. They're all great - have you ever played anyone with any world ranking? They're fab players. That's not in question. But it's fair to analyse relative ups and downs...put it this way, is Murray doing better than ever for what should be his prime phase/years?

Anyway must dash...I'm due on-court in 30 mins! ;-)

PS there is no way on Gods earth that Murray is 84kg.
Federer is listed as 85kg but he's got a smaller frame, less muscle and is 2 inches shorter. Go figure...

I think we have differing views of Andy Murray Lydian.

You think he has declined since 2013.  My view is that Murray peaked in the Lendl years and has returned to his pre-Lendl level in the post-lendl period.  I support my thesis focusing on Murrays Grand Slam performances.  Murray has in the past said after winning various Masters tournaments in the earlier part of his career that he would henceforth focus on the slams.

From what I have learnt from you it seems that Lendl was able to up Murray's level to enable him to win grand slams but that Murray was unable to sustain that level with his body breaking down.  So he is back to the pre-Lendl level with a few minor differences in style and ability.

Goran Ivanisevic maybe disagrees - it seems he thinks Murray is physically able to get back to where he was with Lendl (maybe):  http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/30928690

Novak Djokovic’s father, Srdjan, believes it is because Andy Murray struggles in containing his emotions on court (rather than any physical issue):
http://www.eurosport.com/tennis/srdjan-djokovic-andy-murray-must-calm-down-to-fulfil-talent-why-is-roger-federer-still-playing_sto5318327/story.shtml

PS One has to factor in the facts that both Nadal & Federer have also deteriorated biomechanically but both seem to have little difficulty dispatching Murray in recent matches.

I think we actually somewhat agree NS. He artificially peaked with Lendl as discussed...and it cost him. He's great against guys outside top 5 but when the top 4/5 push him in ways the others don't his far outwide FH movement becomes a problem. He tried to address that "problem" by developing more power and it worked for a while but my argument is that it was an artificial solution that he couldn't sustain against the very best!

Here is a link to one FH discussion I found quickly but I covered it in more detail somewhere else too: https://www.606v2.com/t44355-murray-officially-withdraws-from-french-open#2070376

That post is related to clay but it actually applies to any surface where he gets pushed out of position tbh and ends up lunging on the FH side die to his technique.

NS - Nadal/Fed don't have Murrays inherent technique and footwork issues.
Again this is relative comment vs players who are GOAT level....but that is what Murrau is up against vs the big 3.

kingraf wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Hi Lydian.  Are you a coach or something you seem to have a very good feel for body mechanics and muscle groups.  I'll have to think about what you have written.  Do you have a link to your pictorial analysis thread / comment.  Thanks.

ps to Tennisfan & Sportsfan: analysing in detail a player is not necessarily a  "criticism" of that player.  Here it is in the context of Andy Murray's "place" in tennis, in an era of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

There was more than one. The days when Lydian called a 84kg Murray a tank. I remember them well. The good days

Yeah I never bought this tank lingo used in conjunction to any tennis players. For their height tennis players are if anything underweight at least by any American standard. And nothing about the game of tennis from a strength or cardiovascular level is out of the ordinary for a world class athlete. The problem for Murray I think comes down to the back, he hasn't been the same since Lendl and the Back to be completely honest.

lydian wrote:I think we actually somewhat agree NS. He artificially peaked with Lendl as discussed...and it cost him. He's great against guys outside top 5 but when the top 4/5 push him in ways the others don't his far outwide FH movement becomes a problem. He tried to address that "problem" by developing more power and it worked for a while but my argument is that it was an artificial solution that he couldn't sustain against the very best!

Here is a link to one FH discussion I found quickly but I covered it in more detail somewhere else too: https://www.606v2.com/t44355-murray-officially-withdraws-from-french-open#2070376

That post is related to clay but it actually applies to any surface where he gets pushed out of position tbh and ends up lunging on the FH side die to his technique.

I do agree that Murray took a short term fix with Lendl and probably should have developed a more all court game. It has always struck me as bizarre that Murray of all the Big 4 volleys the least, where early on many said and many still say that he is the best volleyer of the bunch. Now people may say volleying or variety isn't a big deal in today's game but it still matters as you see all the top players working on it and trying to utilize it more and more as they age. Murray should have gone and been a more eclectic attacking player. Use drops, slice approaches, angles, and move from time to time to give his opponent another look. And on days he wasn't feeling it he could then go to the reserve tank of his great movement and groundstrokes, as well as fitness. But if you watch any big 4 matchup with Murray he is always the guy who gets defensive and always the guy who fails to take opportunities to finish the point at net or just with an aggressive shot. Not to mention he typically gets pushed back behind the baseline more in these exchanges as well. But early on in his career he was much more competitive. Now when he plays Novak its just too much of him moving Murray side to side and back off the baseline.

Lydian: Okay. I think we basically agree - with you providing the insight that the winning ways drummed into Murray by Lendl resulted in the back breaking down and the likelihood that Murray knows he cannot physically get back to what he had with Lendl.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:I think we actually somewhat agree NS. He artificially peaked with Lendl as discussed...and it cost him. He's great against guys outside top 5 but when the top 4/5 push him in ways the others don't his far outwide FH movement becomes a problem. He tried to address that "problem" by developing more power and it worked for a while but my argument is that it was an artificial solution that he couldn't sustain against the very best!

Here is a link to one FH discussion I found quickly but I covered it in more detail somewhere else too: https://www.606v2.com/t44355-murray-officially-withdraws-from-french-open#2070376

That post is related to clay but it actually applies to any surface where he gets pushed out of position tbh and ends up lunging on the FH side die to his technique.

I do agree that Murray took a short term fix with Lendl and probably should have developed a more all court game. It has always struck me as bizarre that Murray of all the Big 4 volleys the least, where early on many said and many still say that he is the best volleyer of the bunch. Now people  may say volleying or variety isn't a big deal in today's game but it still matters as you see all the top players working on it and trying to utilize it more and more as they age. Murray should have gone and been a more eclectic attacking player. Use drops, slice approaches, angles, and move from time to time to give his opponent another look. And on days he wasn't feeling it he could then go to the reserve tank of his great movement and groundstrokes, as well as fitness. But if you watch any big 4 matchup with Murray he is always the guy who gets defensive and always the guy who fails to take opportunities to finish the point at net or just with an aggressive shot. Not to mention he typically gets pushed back behind the baseline more in these exchanges as well. But early on in his career he was much more competitive. Now when he plays Novak its just too much of him moving Murray side to side and back off the baseline.

That surely isn't reflective of most Murray matches against the rest of the big 4? He's definitely been the aggressor in the majority of matches with Novak I can recall over the past year or so. Even in Oz, he started very passively but then controlled most of the baseline rallies in sets 2 and 3 - unfortunately he was too error-strewn. Same with the matches against Rafa in MC and Madrid (he was passive at the WTF but he was going through the motions in that one). Even against Fed, he was dictating points behind his own serve both at Wimbledon and Cincy. If anything, the problem has been he has been too aggressive - it's too big a change from his other matches.

lydian wrote:I think we actually somewhat agree NS. He artificially peaked with Lendl as discussed...and it cost him. He's great against guys outside top 5 but when the top 4/5 push him in ways the others don't his far outwide FH movement becomes a problem. He tried to address that "problem" by developing more power and it worked for a while but my argument is that it was an artificial solution that he couldn't sustain against the very best!

Here is a link to one FH discussion I found quickly but I covered it in more detail somewhere else too: https://www.606v2.com/t44355-murray-officially-withdraws-from-french-open#2070376

That post is related to clay but it actually applies to any surface where he gets pushed out of position tbh and ends up lunging on the FH side die to his technique.

I would be very surprised if Murray, with the benefit of the best sports science advice, hasn't tinkered with areas identified as putting pressure on his back. The serve being the obvious one. As I stated before, your comments about his forehand are pure conjecture. I've quite literally heard no one else make them and it is totally at odds with the fact it was his backhand and serve which clearly suffered during the time the back was a problem. I suspect he probably had a congenital back issue (that certainly seemed most likely from the description of his op) which was irritated by the rotation required for his two hander and serve. I don't think the forehand was impacted, much less the cause.

Think there is a few strange things being said on this thread.

'An Artificial Peak' is called on a player who won 2 slams beating Djokovic in both finals. Losing two slam finals to Federer and Djokovic (beat Federer in semis). won Olympic gold beating Wawrinka, Djokovic and Federer on the way. Add a Miami Masters, Brisbane and Queens into that all within a year. For someone who had not won a slam before I would call that pretty impressive.

'but the slams and even Masters seem far off currently...' Murray won Madrid and Montreal in 2015 beating Nadal and Djokovic in the finals. He has been in 2 finals and 2 semis out of the last 5 slams. He had a couple of bad tournaments in IW and Miami this year but I don't see him as being that far off if he can control his temperament.

As far as I remember Lendl took over as Murray's coach in January 2012. So I would think that when Murray played his 5 hour match against Djokovic that year Lendl would have had very little effect on the way he was playing. Murray had also pulled out of the WTF with groin problems a the end of 2011. So were the signs of the back problems there already ? I don't think all the blame should be centered on Lendl.

I found this article written around the time Murray won Wimbledon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/23230293

Losing Lendl to me is the biggest reason for Murray currently not being able to beat the other top guys more often. He has never replaced him properly.

Born Slippy wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:I think we actually somewhat agree NS. He artificially peaked with Lendl as discussed...and it cost him. He's great against guys outside top 5 but when the top 4/5 push him in ways the others don't his far outwide FH movement becomes a problem. He tried to address that "problem" by developing more power and it worked for a while but my argument is that it was an artificial solution that he couldn't sustain against the very best!

Here is a link to one FH discussion I found quickly but I covered it in more detail somewhere else too: https://www.606v2.com/t44355-murray-officially-withdraws-from-french-open#2070376

That post is related to clay but it actually applies to any surface where he gets pushed out of position tbh and ends up lunging on the FH side die to his technique.

I do agree that Murray took a short term fix with Lendl and probably should have developed a more all court game. It has always struck me as bizarre that Murray of all the Big 4 volleys the least, where early on many said and many still say that he is the best volleyer of the bunch. Now people  may say volleying or variety isn't a big deal in today's game but it still matters as you see all the top players working on it and trying to utilize it more and more as they age. Murray should have gone and been a more eclectic attacking player. Use drops, slice approaches, angles, and move from time to time to give his opponent another look. And on days he wasn't feeling it he could then go to the reserve tank of his great movement and groundstrokes, as well as fitness. But if you watch any big 4 matchup with Murray he is always the guy who gets defensive and always the guy who fails to take opportunities to finish the point at net or just with an aggressive shot. Not to mention he typically gets pushed back behind the baseline more in these exchanges as well. But early on in his career he was much more competitive. Now when he plays Novak its just too much of him moving Murray side to side and back off the baseline.

That surely isn't reflective of most Murray matches against the rest of the big 4? He's definitely been the aggressor in the majority of matches with Novak I can recall over the past year or so. Even in Oz, he started very passively but then controlled most of the baseline rallies in sets 2 and 3 - unfortunately he was too error-strewn. Same with the matches against Rafa in MC and Madrid (he was passive at the WTF but he was going through the motions in that one). Even against Fed, he was dictating points behind his own serve both at Wimbledon and Cincy. If anything, the problem has been he has been too aggressive - it's too big a change from his other matches.

Well what you say can be true and what I say can be true at the same time logically speaking. Its not Murray's desire necessarily to be aggressive, he is, he just isn't as good at being controlled and efficiently aggressive. What do I mean, well the matches he litters up the stat sheets against Nadal or Djokovic is often because being aggressive and pushing the game isn't as easy for him or as natural. The thing that kills him against Nadal is Nadal's huge FH and with Novak is Novak generally hitting it earlier and pushing him wide and deep. I know he has been more aggressive in recent matchups and hit more winner and more errors than Djokovic. That shows me he may agree with the critics he has to be the aggressor but he isn't as efficient enough in dictating safely as Fed, Djoko, or Nadal. So its one of two options, passive Murray who tries to win by forcing errors; or aggressive Murray who generates winners but way too many errors to make the additional risk worth it. Tennis is reactive, sometimes the opponent, sometimes the conditions dictate what you can and can't do.

My position is that I think in the long run Andy Murray at six foot three and all the fire power he had could have been a more eclectic attacking player. I like his recent emphasis on the really blasted, sharp angle CC BH. But really he rarely moves into the forecourt and I feel its a waste of his hands and unique shotmaking.

Anyway, on the main topic, I think we have too small a sample size for anyone other than Novak - and my view is that Novak has simply improved to a level Andy has not yet been able to reach. 2013/14 are pretty pointless to consider given the back issues so we are only really looking at 2015/16:

Fed (0-2) - met twice on two quick courts. Fed's serve was insane and he went on to comfortably destroy Novak in the final of Cincy. I don't think Fed will beat Andy on slower courts.

Nadal (1-2) - includes a limp effort at WTF when Andy clearly wasn't bothered due to DC. Annoying though the loss was on Saturday (given the lesson Andy handed out in the first set) I'm not sure we can regard a close defeat by Nadal on clay as evidence of decline.

Stan (0-1) - see above WTF comment.

Murray H2H declined vs Djokovic and Wawrinka because those players improved. vs Federer, well that's a more interesting debate.