Amazing stat I read...

First topic message reminder :

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?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

lydian wrote:Danny, don't really agree there..Fed for one had huge issues dealing with Murrays variety.

And that variety got him four straight sets defeats in slam finals. Something had to change and evidently did so what did change here folks if I can turn the topic of this conversation? After all there seems to be a few here not keen on Lendl's input or methods.

Fair point Craig. When Murray played that hooky jukey style v Fed over 5 sets he would get creamed. I think its a function of Fed having more time on the court to figure things out and find his range to answer the questions that Murray's variety would possess. In a big slam match when it really mattered the big 4 guys would deal with the variety and put Murray on the defense.

There was a November (?) 2015 interview with Lendl that I stumbled across on you tube and he said with coaching and with coaching Andy he could only work on three things at a time, anymore would be too much for the student.   The three things to work on were determined by analysing the reasons for Murray defeats (not the reasons for his wins) and to identify the three most important reasons why he loses and then to work on them.  Then after a period of time he would reassess Murray's game and then re-determine the three most important reasons why Murray lost matches, sets, games etc and then start over.

I imagine that Lendl must have been working on Murray's FH to improve that plus a few other things.

With regard to variation I don't think Murray was losing matches because of his variation but because of other reasons and it was these other reasons that Lendl focussed on.  It may be with improvements of certain parts of Murray's game under Lendl there was no reason for Murray to adopt as much variation as in the past.

Variation is a tactic and it is a particularly useful tactic for the tennis player with no killer shot or the tennis player with perhaps a few "technical weakness" in some of their shots.

What were those other reasons for straight sets losses though?

CaledonianCraig wrote:What were those other reasons for straight sets losses though?

I think it was associated with a lack of something in Murrays game - he wasn't able to impose himself on Federer etc - his game broke down under pressure in particular the FH - so these elements were focussed on.  Someone will need to go and trawl Lendls interviews and writings to see if he mentions what he specifically worked on with Murray.  In the absence of that I go along with Lydian in assuming Lendl worked on his FH and serving and ... not sure what else.

So it would appear we have a Catch 22 situation. Lendl's work on improving Andy's forehand had a hand in pushing him from straight set slam final losses to slam wins. However, lydian has been saying these changes could have wrecked Andy's back. So should Andy have left forehand alone and remained a possible slam also-ran or was Lendl right to re-model the forehand?

CaledonianCraig wrote:So it would appear we have a Catch 22 situation. Lendl's work on improving Andy's forehand had a hand in pushing him from straight set slam final losses to slam wins. However, lydian has been saying these changes could have wrecked Andy's back. So should Andy have left forehand alone and remained a possible slam also-ran or was Lendl right to re-model the forehand?

Yes that its.  I think Lydian and I in agreement suggest that Lendl's method did work (in fact the evidence supports that) - it turned Murray into a two time slam winner and an Olympic Gold medallist where he actually had to and did beat Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic in best of five set matches that were important.  

But Lydian also suggests that this was the cause of Murray's break down because Lendl didn't correct some underlying technical issues in Murray's game - this is where the dispute is arising.  The question is why doesn't Murray just reproduce what he had under Lendl - Lydian suggests that he is physically unable to get back there.  Not sure whether Socal and others agree with that.

It seems to me Lydian is suggesting that Murray had an alternative path that may have proved successful but may not have: that is to maintain the variation and to correct the "underlying technical weaknesses" in his game.  Not sure exactly how that works but Lydian is suggesting some changes in the fundamentals of Murray's approach to his FH - but then again his existing approach may be too ingrained to change - it may be too late to change.  Which is sort of what Andy Murray says the LTA did to Jamie Murray - he says the "LTA ruined Jamie Murray".

CaledonianCraig wrote:So it would appear we have a Catch 22 situation. Lendl's work on improving Andy's forehand had a hand in pushing him from straight set slam final losses to slam wins. However, lydian has been saying these changes could have wrecked Andy's back. So should Andy have left forehand alone and remained a possible slam also-ran or was Lendl right to re-model the forehand?

Yeah I also think Lydian's assertion that Lendl's changes damaged Murrray's back by overemphasizing the FH DTL is wrong. Even a hitch in that swing would not be something you traditionally would blame a bad back on. And he has had the same technique for years, he simply didn't hit enough DTLFH in terms of a increase to think that it would wear him out. It seems more to me that tennis is just bad on the back. I mean if you took anyone who has played 10years on tour chances are you will find an inordinate amount of back issues over and beyond what you would expect for example from a test group of fit people in their age group. So the causal relationship of the DTLFH to back issues I have a big issue with.

Nore Staat wrote:There was a November (?) 2015 interview with Lendl that I stumbled across on you tube and he said with coaching and with coaching Andy he could only work on three things at a time, anymore would be too much for the student.   The three things to work on were determined by analysing the reasons for Murray defeats (not the reasons for his wins) and to identify the three most important reasons why he loses and then to work on them.  Then after a period of time he would reassess Murray's game and then re-determine the three most important reasons why Murray lost matches, sets, games etc and then start over.

I imagine that Lendl must have been working on Murray's FH to improve that plus a few other things.

With regard to variation I don't think Murray was losing matches because of his variation but because of other reasons and it was these other reasons that Lendl focussed on.  It may be with improvements of certain parts of Murray's game under Lendl there was no reason for Murray to adopt as much variation as in the past.

Variation is a tactic and it is a particularly useful tactic for the tennis player with no killer shot or the tennis player with perhaps a few "technical weakness" in some of their shots.

I really like listening to Ivan. The interviewer is annoying as feck though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqtodwLkL8k

Lendl added more firepower to the FH and worked on mentality.
After all, Murray was generally better than Fed over 3 sets but not 5...so must have been mentality issue (cant believe fitness was defining issue to 2012).
For all we know, had he just worked on his mentality then his innate variety could have been enough over 5 as well as 3...

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

lydian wrote:Danny, don't really agree there..Fed for one had huge issues dealing with Murrays variety.

And that variety got him four straight sets defeats in slam finals. Something had to change and evidently did so what did change here folks if I can turn the topic of this conversation? After all there seems to be a few here not keen on Lendl's input or methods.

Fair point Craig. When Murray played that hooky jukey style v Fed over 5 sets he would get creamed. I think its a function of Fed having more time on the court to figure things out and find his range to answer the questions that Murray's variety would possess. In a big slam match when it really mattered the big 4 guys would deal with the variety and put Murray on the defense.

He didn't play that style though. He froze and played one-dimensional tennis whilst making hideous numbers of poor errors. That's the reality of Andy's first three slam finals.

When Murray was with Lendl and beating Federer and Djokovic and winning slams and Olympic gold medals - my impression was that he was powering through them, he just had the better stronger shots and was taking control of the matches. That I suppose was indicative of powerful FH and BH, a strong serve and positive play.

But I suppose he could have tried beating them by playing "under" them, by being more tactical, by showing more variation, by outmanoeuvring them - but he has never been able to do that with them (Federer, Djokovic, Nadal) although one suspected he might have had it in him to do that.

NS, I doubt Murray could outmanoeuvre them. They are tactically more sound and more experienced than Murray. I do believe Murray knows that himself and so he has taken that 'overpowering them' tactic instead.

He beat Djoko and Fed at the slams by trying to outhit them or outlast them. When he plays against Nadal, its obvious he tries to be aggressive and outhit Nadal.

Born Slippy wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

lydian wrote:Danny, don't really agree there..Fed for one had huge issues dealing with Murrays variety.

And that variety got him four straight sets defeats in slam finals. Something had to change and evidently did so what did change here folks if I can turn the topic of this conversation? After all there seems to be a few here not keen on Lendl's input or methods.

Fair point Craig. When Murray played that hooky jukey style v Fed over 5 sets he would get creamed. I think its a function of Fed having more time on the court to figure things out and find his range to answer the questions that Murray's variety would possess. In a big slam match when it really mattered the big 4 guys would deal with the variety and put Murray on the defense.

He didn't play that style though. He froze and played one-dimensional tennis whilst making hideous numbers of poor errors. That's the reality of Andy's first three slam finals.

Yeah, I was thinking more of the 3 sets wins kind of had that feel against Federer prior to Lendl. I think in some of those matches he did dink and dunk Roger.

Could it be that Murray has deteriorated overall? I mean how is his win percentage now compared to the Golden Age of Murray in 2012 and 2013? Is he winning as many tournaments? As many Masters? I think it is a combination of two things. Murray would have significantly more titles if he could beat Djokovic the last year and half. Yes he also has been losing to Roger and Nadal but the big slam finals have been with Novak . That is what we truly notice anyway. If he lost a bunch of times more Roger and Nadal but managed to beat Novak in a slam final in this period then none of us would deem him to have regressed. Maybe Murray is not worse than he ever was and Novak is just better? Murray probably would have won at least one more slam if Novak in 2015 and 2016 didn't turn it up. If last AO Murray plays lets say Djokovic of 2014 and in this year's final and wins that match in a close like Novak was apt to let go in those days, would we be having these conversations? The second thing for me I think is not technical flaws or lack of fitness. He was the same technically flawed players when he was winning slams and masters more regularly.

Now the second reason in my opinion he is losing is I think maybe Murray being bigger, heavier, having a few more injury issues than Novak or Roger maybe is starting to feel it. Maybe the days we see Andy Murray getting his second serve crushed he just feels not quite right in the back but he can't just keep shutting it down. I think he is probably pain free, but has not recovered his full belief in his game and body since the injury. Sometimes its not just the injury but the time off from the game and knock to your mind that takes place. I think it could be lingering physical and mental impact of that injury. He really hasn't looked the same since except in short spells.

There is another possibility socal, and it's one that I very much don't like... Does he really want it now?

I mean, he obviously wants to win and it'd be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. But if you think of the intensity levels Murray showed in that last game Murray played against Novak in the Wimbledon final, to somehow scrape through it... Anyone seen that intensity since? I haven't.

I often hear him shout "fire up" at himself... The old Murray never used to have to say that. We were all saying calm down, not fire up! His match against Rafa the other week where he played an immaculate first set, but then dropped off. Is that intensity or desire related?

I don't even know if I agree with this myself to be honest, but it would make some sense. Olympics, USO, Wimbledon, Davis Cup... They all had people saying no Brit has done this for 70+ years and therefore he got an avalanche of praise and goodwill. His place in history, particularly British history, is secured so maybe his belly is full? Maybe that intensity to get him through that fifth set against Novak in New York just isn't there anymore.

After Lendl he talked about playing with more variety and trying to enjoy his tennis more than the 'winning tennis' Lendl had him playing. I thought at the time it was a funny statement. One thing is for sure, he is not playing the way Lendl wanted him to. And that's the way to win the big prizes.

socal1976 wrote:Could it be that Murray has deteriorated overall? I mean how is his win percentage now compared to the Golden Age of Murray in 2012 and 2013? Is he winning as many tournaments? As many Masters? I think it is a combination of two things. Murray would have significantly more titles if he could beat Djokovic the last year and half. Yes he also has been losing to Roger and Nadal but the big slam finals have been with Novak . That is what we truly notice anyway. If he lost a bunch of times more Roger and Nadal but managed to beat Novak in a slam final in this period then none of us would deem him to have regressed. Maybe Murray is not worse than he ever was and Novak is just better? Murray probably would have won at least one more slam if Novak in 2015 and 2016 didn't turn it up. If last AO Murray plays lets say Djokovic of 2014 and in this year's final and wins that match in a close like Novak was apt to let go in those days, would we be having these conversations? The second thing for me I think is not technical flaws or lack of fitness. He was the same technically flawed players when he was winning slams and masters more regularly.

Now the second reason in my opinion he is losing is I think maybe Murray being bigger, heavier, having a few more injury issues than Novak or Roger maybe is starting to feel it. Maybe the days we see Andy Murray getting his second serve crushed he just feels not quite right in the back but he can't just keep shutting it down. I think he is probably pain free, but has not recovered his full belief in his game and body since the injury. Sometimes its not just the injury but the time off from the game and knock to your mind that takes place. I think it could be lingering physical and mental impact of that injury. He really hasn't looked the same since except in short spells.

2012: 2 slam finals (1 win)
2015: 1 slam final (0 wins)

2012: 0 Masters wins (2 finals)
2015: 2 Masters wins (4 finals)

2012: 3 titles
2015: 4 titles

2012: 77% win percentage (56:16)
2015: 83% win percentage (71:14)

He was supreme for the majority of last year (just not quite as good as Novak). Had he not ran into Fed playing his greatest ever match at Wimbledon then I suspect he would have gone on win there.

This is being overanalysed to be honest. He hasn't been great since his baby was born but I'd expect him back to his best soon.

^Yes, Murray's golden period is often overstated.

The highs were obviously very high.

But in the 12 months following his win at the USO, Andy only won 1 Masters title (Miami 13).

His Masters results in  that 12 month period were: F, R16, QF, W, R16, QF, R32, R16, QF.

Going into USO13, with 2 slams in his points total, he was still only ranked #3.

So it really was a couple of good performances in the most important matches. It wasn't a year long elevation of form.

I don't say that to belittle his achievement but I don't buy into the idea he was much better in 2012/13 than he was in 2015.

Didn't Murray spend quite a number of weeks at number 2 in 2013? - maybe 3 weeks in April and then about 12 weeks from middle of May to the middle of August.
It's amazing how Murray managed this "on a couple of good performances."

It was a bit more than a couple of good performances. Prior to that period he'd been awful in big matches, but under Lendl:

AO SF 2012 lost to Novak 3/2 - played very well
Wimb F 2012 lost to Federer 3/1 - played well
OG SF 2012 beat Novak 2/0 - played exceptional
OG F 2012 beat Federer 3/0 - played exceptional
US F 2012 beat Novak 3/2 - played very well
AO F 2013 lost to Novak 3/1 - played well
Wimb 2013 beat Novak 3/0 - played very well

Now I know some discount the olympics, but they were very important for Andy and when it was important for Andy, and against his main rivals, that was usually when he wouldn't perform.

Those performances gave him chances to win in all of the above matches. Prior to that, and since Lendl has gone the performances have not matched the above in the big matches, with only a couple of exceptions I can think of.

I know people look at other titles, but during that period Andy said himself he was focused on big titles. That was reflected in some of his performances outside the big tournaments.

Most importantly, as a Murray fan who watches the vast majority of his matches, I felt during the Lendl period that he went into big slam matches against the best with a 50-50 shot of winning. Now I don't.

The reasons for that can be argued, but I'm not sure the results can be.

Tennisfan wrote:Didn't Murray spend quite a number of weeks at number 2 in 2013? - maybe 3 weeks in April and then about 12 weeks from middle of May to the middle of August.
It's amazing how Murray managed this "on a couple of good performances."

He reached #2 in April 13 with 8,750 points and 4 titles (Olympics, USO, Brisbane (250), Miami (1000))

He is currently #2 with 8,175 points and 4 titles (Madrid (1000), Canada (1000), Queens (500) and Munich (250))

With one more win (in the AO final) he would be a slam winner, have more titles than he did in 2013 and have more ranking points than he did in 2013.

It's entirely justified to say that difference between Murray now and Murray in 2013 is a couple of good performances in big matches.

Fans and followers of Andy Murray have developed expectations like fans and followers of other players and fans and followers of football teams in the English Premier League.  Now if you are a supporter of Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal you have an expectation that your team should be beating all other teams or at least not losing to them.  If you are following Everton then you expect your team to be beating the rest or not losing to them, but you develop a realistic expectation that most times they are going to be beaten by the top teams.

With Andy Murray fans and followers they only had that expectation that Murray could beat the very top players Federer/Djokovic/Nadal (non-French Open) in grand slam matches during his time with Ivan Lendl.  Before Lendl there was an expectation that he could be blown away by them in grand slam matches although, with effort, he could beat them in non-grand slam tournaments.

Post Lendl and post back operation that expectation has gone.  He seems to have no chance against Djokovic in any match, against old man Federer we doubt Murray could beat him if Federer is fit enough not to be using a walking stick (Federer has slowed down).  We expect Murray to beat an injured Nadal, but if he is fit and not hobbling around, then we expect Murray to lose.  Everyone else we expect Murray to win against except an in form Wawrinka.  We feel it is only a matter of time before Krygios is beating him - if only Krygios can remain focussed and aggressive enough through the match.

Murray doesn't seem to have a plan B or an extra gear so there is an expectation that under pressure he will be "broken" in the later sets and fade off.

I think Andy's plan A since he split with Lendl is the biggest problem. Quote from 2014, not long after he'd started with Mauresmo:

"Variety was something that maybe Ivan wasn't that big on," said Murray. "He was very big on being aggressive and coming forward to finish points but Amelie played with a lot of variety herself.

"It worked well for her and when it's used properly, it can make a big difference. It's been a big part of my game since I was young. That's the other thing she's been into.

"I played like that when I was a kid and I did it as well when I came on to the Tour until I was 21, 22. But when I was starting to play winning tennis, high percentage solid tennis, not making many mistakes, moving well, maybe I just got away from using that.

"That's something I wanted to get back to a little bit and try to use in matches."

I think Andy is at his very best when he is on the front foot, but his instinct is still to drop deep and play counter attacking, more defensive shots. It's dressed up as variety, but that's when he starts leaving it short, and losing control of points.

Ivan got him out of this, pushed and pushed for him to dictate as often as possible. Not kamikaze, but on the baseline hitting deep with plenty of margin. That was what won the big matches. That's the consistent (boring to some) approach that he has got away from.

He could play this way now, but chooses not to. He wants to enjoy his tennis. His right of course, but it won't win slams. No guarantees his previous strategy would either of course, but the stats in the big matches say he'd be way more likely.

Interesting quote.  One wonders why he would want to move away from playing "winning (adult) tennis" and to return to junior tennis and losing tennis.  I suppose he just wants to enjoy his tennis more - except when he is losing he seems to hate it, judging by his on court demeanour.

It's interesting that he says "it worked for her" but doesn't say "winning tennis" or Lendl's tennis "worked for me - Andy Murray" - he just says he wants to get back to the type of play he had when he was younger than 21/22 before he was forced into playing "winning tennis" with the big boys.

Disagree with the above. The way Andy beats the rest of the big 4 is to make full use of his range of shots whilst being aggressive. The reason why he was seen as so exciting coming through is that he really should have it all. He has a bomb of a first serve, extreme power in his groundstrokes, silky skills and incredible defensive ability (and he's also arguably the greatest returner of all time).

The fact is that, incredible career though he has had, he has never successfully harnessed a winning gameplan utilising all his gifts. Lendl made it mentally easier for him (basically made him a meat and potatoes player using a small range of his skills but stopped him overthinking). It may be that Andy's mentality made it impossible, but I suspect there is a coach out there who would have instead got him using all his skills more successfully.

I would have loved him to have worked with Magnus Norman (given what he's done with players with a fraction of the skills) or maybe someone like McEnroe - who was far closer to him in talent/skills but managed to better harness them.

I always thought his best spell of his career would come late on, when he learnt to fully harness his potential. There are signs under Mauresmo that he is getting there but I do wonder if he quite has the desire to really push himself any more. He seems happy with what he has made of his career/life. If so, all the best to him.

My view is that he didn't have it all.  He reached his natural level which was below Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal - he couldn't beat them in the grand slams, although he could beat Federer in lesser tournaments in best of three and Nadal off the clay in best of three.  Lendl was able to get him above his natural level, but post Lendl and post back operation, Murray has returned to his "natural level".  Now Murray is looking to enjoy his tennis which he probably didn't much when he was aiming to win slams.  Head to Head records give a good indication of the natural pecking order.  

Same thing when analysing why a top 50 player is not a top 30 player.
Same thing when analysing why a top 30 player is not a top 10 player.
Same thing when analysing why a top 10 player is not a top 5 player.

Credit Murray for getting close. Credit Murray for convincing some of his followers he was a nearly man of tennis. He may end up with the record of having the most runner up positions in singles grand slams for men.

Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novac Djokovic have proven themselves to be "special" individuals in the men's game and their names have been / are being indelibly etched into the history of the global sport of tennis.  Andy Murray is not one of them although for British tennis his name will live on.

Grand slam runner up Positions (wins in brackets) {names of those they lost to in the finals}
Murray 7 (2) {Federer x 3; Djokovic x 4}
Djokovic 8 (11) {Federer x 1; Nadal x 4; Murray x 2; Wawrinka x 1}
Federer 10 (17) {Nadal x 6; Djokovic x 3; Del Potro x 1}
Nadal 6 (14) {Federer x 2; Djokovic x 3; Wawrinka x 1}
Lendl 11 (8)
Connors 7 (8)

Born Slippy wrote:Disagree with the above. The way Andy beats the rest of the big 4 is to make full use of his range of shots whilst being aggressive. The reason why he was seen as so exciting coming through is that he really should have it all. He has a bomb of a first serve, extreme power in his groundstrokes, silky skills and incredible defensive ability (and he's also arguably the greatest returner of all time).

The fact is that, incredible career though he has had, he has never successfully harnessed a winning gameplan utilising all his gifts. Lendl made it mentally easier for him (basically made him a meat and potatoes player using a small range of his skills but stopped him overthinking). It may be that Andy's mentality made it impossible, but I suspect there is a coach out there who would have instead got him using all his skills more successfully.

I would have loved him to have worked with Magnus Norman (given what he's done with players with a fraction of the skills) or maybe someone like McEnroe - who was far closer to him in talent/skills but managed to better harness them.

I always thought his best spell of his career would come late on, when he learnt to fully harness his potential. There are signs under Mauresmo that he is getting there but I do wonder if he quite has the desire to really push himself any more. He seems happy with what he has made of his career/life. If so, all the best to him.

Seriously, you do write some nonsense.

He is not the greatest returner of all time - there is no arguably about it.

Federer apparently played his greatest ever match at W to beat Murray in last year's semi final. A guy who's been to 10 W finals - winning 7 - but his greatest ever match at that tournament was a three setter against Murray - ok.

Kind of like your assessment of the W '14 final as better than the '08 final - bizzare nonsense. Federer played well - for his current level - but clearly a few notches below his best.

It's no coincidence that Murray loses so often to these guys. It's quite simple really. They're just better

Apologies BS,

that post reads a little too harshly

Lol Emanci. Federer was pretty woeful in 08 - the first two sets particularly he was dire. He did well to make that match close. It was great drama but the standard wasn't amazing. You just don't want to agree he was better in 2014 as it doesn't suit the agenda that Fed would have wiped the floor with Novak back in the day.

As for the Murray match, Fed beat a recent Wimbledon champion (who had demolished him the last time they'd played on the court), in a match where Murray served over 70% (his usual great weakness). He didn't face a break point after the first game against, at worst, the second best current returner. Yet, you think that wasn't up there with his very best Wimbledon wins? Take off the blinkers and understand how great a display that was.

As for greatest returner, I obviously can argue it as I can put stats up showing he's got a better return record than both Novak and Andre (despite being notably less successful).

Danny_1982 wrote:"Variety was something that maybe Ivan wasn't that big on...Amelie played with a lot of variety herself. It worked well for her and when it's used properly, it can make a big difference. It's been a big part of my game since I was young. That's the other thing she's been into. I played like that when I was a kid and I did it as well when I came on to the Tour until I was 21, 22."

So my point about Lendl drumming the variety out of him was correct.

Danny_1982 wrote:"That's something I wanted to get back to a little bit and try to use in matches."

My point, and OP notion, that something has changed was also indeed correct - i.e. Murray himself wants to get back to the variety because he doesn't ENJOY playing the other way.
Maybe in part because he found it hard to physically sustain...playing the same patterns of play over and over also overstress certain body areas, e.g. the back...

Danny - "Ivan got him out of this, pushed and pushed for him to dictate as often as possible. Not kamikaze, but on the baseline hitting deep with plenty of margin. That was what won the big matches. That's the consistent (boring to some) approach that he has got away from."

...and boring to Murray it would seem. Plus the approach has arguably screwed his body over because it wasn't a natural game for him. Whatever quirks he has in his game, eg FH as discussed, he's been having to paper over them by redlining shot after drilled shot it under Lendl and I suspect the victories came at a longer-term mental and physical price. Clearly he doesn't want to play brain-dead (despite the big wins) tennis anymore because it under-utilises his core skills. He wants to use his innate variety because that's his A game, the one he likes and bamboozled guys with before. There is no reason why he cant merge the variety with the enhanced power he now has since filling his frame out. This is why Amelie is on board.

Therefore, I stand by this thread and what I've written!!!

But like I said lydian - however people may not like what Lendl did to Murray playing style-wise - he turned him from slamless and setless in four slam finals into a dual slam winner and Olympic Champion. Now if you think Lendl tinkering with Andy's forehand ended up wrecking Andy's back then fair enough but if that tinkering and improving the effectiveness worked then it won Andy two slams. At the end of his career those slam wins will be what Andy is remembered for and like I said whatever Lendl did it worked so I don't think anyone can moan/complain about what Lendl did for Murray.

Taking all the comments into account my view now is that Murray's normal play was causing him some back problems, with Lendl it may have aggravated it, but post back operation he could get back to the Lendl style of physicality if he wanted to - he only really needs it for the "big match up" against the big boys.  But he just doesn't seem interested in returning to the Lendl coached style.

As CC indicated and we all know - Andy Murray will mostly be remembered for his two years with Lendl where he broke various 70 year odd British male tennis records in winning a slam and then winning Wimbledon.

It seems a shame for his followers that he seems to be letting things slide a little given this period should be best for picking up a few more slams in the wake of Federer and Nadal and before any one new starts challenging for the titles.

Andy Murray will be turning 29 in about two weeks time, where we know the stats indicate the chances of winning a slam are slim except if you are one of the tennis greats or have something powerful in your game (as per Wawrinka).

Sure...he won big (although I'm sure Fed has a thing or 2 to say about OG final after JMDP...) but I'll wager he hated the style of play he was pursuing. Otherwise why the U-turn back to variety now? If Lendl's approach was so good then why not stick to it...he could do that even with Lendl gone. But doesn't want to (as NS agrees). Because it was pushing into areas he didn't like...mentally, physically and pure sense of tennis enjoyment.

Another thing I remember Andy saying about the difference between Lendl and Mauresmo is that with Lendl it was all about volume in relation to training. Long drills. Struggling with CCBH? Ok, we'll hit that Poopie only for the next two hours. Mauresmo is apparently more focused, smaller sessions.

In that sense, I can understand Lendl causing more physical strain. But not in matches. Murray did way more running pre Lendl, lots more contorting and scrambling at the back of the court. Wars of attrition.

I'm with Craig when it comes to Lendl. Thank goodness he coached him. I only wish he'd started earlier, or was still there. I think Andy would have clocked up some very impressive numbers by now.

As for "why did he change?" As I suggested earlier, maybe his belly is full. His place in history is secured. Maybe that's enough hard yards, now it's time to enjoy himself. Alternatively, in spite of the results, maybe he really does believe this way is better than Lendl's way.

Danny_1982 wrote:There is another possibility socal, and it's one that I very much don't like... Does he really want it now?

I mean, he obviously wants to win and it'd be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. But if you think of the intensity levels Murray showed in that last game Murray played against Novak in the Wimbledon final, to somehow scrape through it... Anyone seen that intensity since? I haven't.

I don't know you watch him more than I do. I mean Murray has always to me seemed like a guy who has been pretty driven and work oriented so I would tend not to believe it. Those kinds of people generally once they get going have to keep going with some level of high intensity all the way through. That sort of drive and desire has to be there when you look at his career and even today. Maybe on some level he isn't as subconsciously hungry that is really too psychologically deep for me and maybe even Murray doesn't know.

I think the more logical answer frankly is that Murray probably in 2015 and 16 would have another slam win maybe two if Novak didn't elevate over his form of 2014. I mean he was never expected to win multiple slams or three in a year but his age and the peak years you would probably expect that post the back he would have won a slam in the 15/16 season and he didn't. Mainly through no fault of his own but that Novak went to a gear that he just doesn't have.

Born Slippy wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Could it be that Murray has deteriorated overall? I mean how is his win percentage now compared to the Golden Age of Murray in 2012 and 2013? Is he winning as many tournaments? As many Masters? I think it is a combination of two things. Murray would have significantly more titles if he could beat Djokovic the last year and half. Yes he also has been losing to Roger and Nadal but the big slam finals have been with Novak . That is what we truly notice anyway. If he lost a bunch of times more Roger and Nadal but managed to beat Novak in a slam final in this period then none of us would deem him to have regressed. Maybe Murray is not worse than he ever was and Novak is just better? Murray probably would have won at least one more slam if Novak in 2015 and 2016 didn't turn it up. If last AO Murray plays lets say Djokovic of 2014 and in this year's final and wins that match in a close like Novak was apt to let go in those days, would we be having these conversations? The second thing for me I think is not technical flaws or lack of fitness. He was the same technically flawed players when he was winning slams and masters more regularly.

Now the second reason in my opinion he is losing is I think maybe Murray being bigger, heavier, having a few more injury issues than Novak or Roger maybe is starting to feel it. Maybe the days we see Andy Murray getting his second serve crushed he just feels not quite right in the back but he can't just keep shutting it down. I think he is probably pain free, but has not recovered his full belief in his game and body since the injury. Sometimes its not just the injury but the time off from the game and knock to your mind that takes place. I think it could be lingering physical and mental impact of that injury. He really hasn't looked the same since except in short spells.

2012: 2 slam finals (1 win)
2015: 1 slam final (0 wins)

2012: 0 Masters wins (2 finals)
2015: 2 Masters wins (4 finals)

2012: 3 titles
2015: 4 titles

2012: 77% win percentage (56:16)
2015: 83% win percentage (71:14)

He was supreme for the majority of last year (just not quite as good as Novak). Had he not ran into Fed playing his greatest ever match at Wimbledon then I suspect he would have gone on win there.

This is being overanalysed to be honest. He hasn't been great since his baby was born but I'd expect him back to his best soon.

This goes to what I have been saying. He wins his last slam in 2013, hurts his back and isn't right the rest of 2014, then in 2015 Novak goes beast mode. If right now Murray was sitting on 3 or 4 slams, which could have been a real possibility if not for the injury first then Novak upping his level he probably would have that number. Its kind of the bad timing that has sort of plagued him in and I suppose fairly many other players at or near his age. The rest of his numbers look good against the other guys on tour.

The losses to Roger and Rafa, well he never played Rafa well, he did have a time period when owned the three set record against Roger. I think a few variables changed against Murray. Roger aged, but aged gracefully. The racquet change made Roger less likely to go shankerer, which really was why Murray was beating him earlier. It was not because he was hitting a lot of winners he was using his legs and his ability to change up paces and spins to break Roger's timing at some point. Also Murray had his lengthy own back issues in this period. So the losses to Roger and Novak look like individual isuses with the matchup and his injury, while really Murray never played Nadal that well ever. This is supported by the fact that he is playing better against the rest of the tour. Plus Murray simplifying his style and Roger make his style even more aggressive as a default also cut against Murray in that rivalry.

lydian wrote:Danny - "Ivan got him out of this, pushed and pushed for him to dictate as often as possible. Not kamikaze, but on the baseline hitting deep with plenty of margin. That was what won the big matches. That's the consistent (boring to some) approach that he has got away from."

...and boring to Murray it would seem. Plus the approach has arguably screwed his body over because it wasn't a natural game for him. Whatever quirks he has in his game, eg FH as discussed, he's been having to paper over them by redlining shot after drilled shot it under Lendl and I suspect the victories came at a longer-term mental and physical price. Clearly he doesn't want to play brain-dead (despite the big wins) tennis anymore because it under-utilises his core skills. He wants to use his innate variety because that's his A game, the one he likes and bamboozled guys with before. There is no reason why he cant merge the variety with the enhanced power he now has since filling his frame out. This is why Amelie is on board.

Therefore, I stand by this thread and what I've written!!!

You can stand by it but I don't think a very strong logical relationship has been shown between Murray hitting a few more DTLFHs under Lendl and his back injury. I mean do tennis players who aren't coached by Lendl after 10 years on tour NOT suffer back issues? By the way he had the same technique for years. Even the poor body preparation, footwork, and swing you noted would still not be that damaging since he managed to pull of the same thing for the first 7 or 8 years of his career without serious lengthy injuries when compared to what would be normal. Plus like I said DTLFH is the probably one of the least stress inducing shots on the back in the whole tennis world so that is another issue that I don't think has been totally addressed although you did make a believable assertion that it was his need to generate extra spin and safety on that shot. Still nothing to the damage years of kick serving will do to your back.

Plus we need a side discussion for the statement OPen=more power to Closed, maybe another thread

lydian wrote:Sure...he won big (although I'm sure Fed has a thing or 2 to say about OG final after JMDP...) but I'll wager he hated the style of play he was pursuing. Otherwise why the U-turn back to variety now? If Lendl's approach was so good then why not stick to it...he could do that even with Lendl gone. But doesn't want to (as NS agrees). Because it was pushing into areas he didn't like...mentally, physically and pure sense of tennis enjoyment.

What surprised me is learning that Goran Ivanisevic, who I believe is on the inside of Ivan Lendl's circle of friends, lays the responsibility on Andy Murray deciding to split with / sack Ivan Lendl.  At the time it was explained as a mutual parting of the ways because Ivan Lendl wanted to cut down on the touring aspect of the coaching arrangement.  Now it seems that Lendl was prepared to negotiate a reduced coaching arrangement with Murray, but Murray was not interested and parted with him.  One could imagine that Lendl having coached Murray to two slam titles and an Olympic Gold medal, would have assessed he could reduce his coaching hours with Murray, given he had successfully addressed whatever he had to address to get Murray winning, and the rest would just be "maintenance".  But Murray sacked him / parted company with him.

So it seems to me there was more in this parting of the ways with Ivan Lendl than meets the eye - basically it seems that Murray hated the style of play he was pursuing and used the issue of Lendl wanting to reduce the touring aspect of the arrangement as an excuse to let him go.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/30928690
http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/tennis/australian-open/news/ivanisevic-murray-wrong-to-sack-lendl_200554.html

Born Slippy wrote:Lol Emanci. Federer was pretty woeful in 08 - the first two sets particularly he was dire. He did well to make that match close. It was great drama but the standard wasn't amazing. You just don't want to agree he was better in 2014 as it doesn't suit the agenda that Fed would have wiped the floor with Novak back in the day.

As for the Murray match, Fed beat a recent Wimbledon champion (who had demolished him the last time they'd played on the court), in a match where Murray served over 70% (his usual great weakness). He didn't face a break point after the first game against, at worst, the second best current returner. Yet, you think that wasn't up there with his very best Wimbledon wins? Take off the blinkers and understand how great a display that was.

As for greatest returner, I obviously can argue it as I can put stats up showing he's got a better return record than both Novak and Andre (despite being notably less successful).

Federer wasn't great for the first two sets but overall the standard was better than W 2014. Some of the points were incredible in that match; just go and compare the highlights. Fast, furious rallies that required incredible athleticism. 2014 Federer wouldn't even chase after some of those balls let alone get to them and hit winners. But of course it doesn't suit your agenda to say W '08 ( which pretty much everyone else will say was of a higher standard) was better because you want to promote the erroneous view that the standard goes up every year without fail - hence the ridiculous comments that Federer at 34 is as good as Federer at 25. Ok dude, what are you smoking? And yes that younger version of Federer would handily beat any version of Djokovic on grass - he's just a superior grass court player with a skill set that is more suited to the surface. Even the '12 version beat him comfortably. The reason why he can't beat Djokovic on the surface now is because he doesn't move as well. Simple. He's late on the FH, he's stretched, he can't get to balls that he could get to easily before.

As for the Murray match - Federer played well - but for the most part he just served incredibly well. You said it was his best ever performance at W - that's just nonsense - but of course it nicely fits your agenda whereby in your imaginary world, Murray is somehow on the same level as those guys, aside from a few intangibles. Reality check buddy - he's not.

Well that says it all doesn't it Nore.
Murray dropped Lendl because he just didn't want to follow that approach any more. He wanted to play tennis the way he used to know and enjoy, and not stress his body & mind in the process!

Socal, for heavens sake stop going on about the DTL shot, you're the one making a big deal out of it. I'm talking about his FH issues in general!

lydian wrote:Socal, for heavens sake stop going on about the DTL shot, you're the one making a big deal out of it. I'm talking about his FH issues in general!

I am sorry your making that assumption central to many of your other arguments. I accept your concession, and magnanimously if I do say so myself.

emancipator wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Lol Emanci. Federer was pretty woeful in 08 - the first two sets particularly he was dire. He did well to make that match close. It was great drama but the standard wasn't amazing. You just don't want to agree he was better in 2014 as it doesn't suit the agenda that Fed would have wiped the floor with Novak back in the day.

As for the Murray match, Fed beat a recent Wimbledon champion (who had demolished him the last time they'd played on the court), in a match where Murray served over 70% (his usual great weakness). He didn't face a break point after the first game against, at worst, the second best current returner. Yet, you think that wasn't up there with his very best Wimbledon wins? Take off the blinkers and understand how great a display that was.

As for greatest returner, I obviously can argue it as I can put stats up showing he's got a better return record than both Novak and Andre (despite being notably less successful).

Federer wasn't great for the first two sets but overall the standard was better than W 2014. Some of the points were incredible in that match; just go and compare the highlights. Fast, furious rallies that required incredible athleticism. 2014 Federer wouldn't even chase after some of those balls let alone get to them and hit winners. But of course it doesn't suit your agenda to say W '08 ( which pretty much everyone else will say was of a higher standard) was better because you want to promote the erroneous view that the standard goes up every year without fail - hence the ridiculous comments that Federer at 34 is as good as Federer at 25. Ok dude, what are you smoking? And yes that younger version of Federer would handily beat any version of Djokovic on grass - he's just a superior grass court player with a skill set that is more suited to the surface. Even the '12 version beat him comfortably. The reason why he can't beat Djokovic on the surface now is because he doesn't move as well. Simple. He's late on the FH, he's stretched, he can't get to balls that he could get to easily before.

As for the Murray match - Federer played well - but for the most part he just served incredibly well. You said it was his best ever performance at W - that's just nonsense - but of course it nicely fits your agenda whereby in your imaginary world, Murray is somehow on the same level as those guys, aside from a few intangibles. Reality check buddy - he's not.

What are you banging on about? Whatever the reason, of course it's accepted that Andy isn't on the same level as the other guys - that's obvious. Perhaps he could have been if he'd taken a different path, who knows? However, the fact is that he's still an exceptional grass court player, with an 84.1% overall win-loss record on the surface (17th all-time and 4th in the Open era) and a recent Wimbledon champion! To suggest that Federer going 56-11 (winners-UEs) against someone of that caliber, known for their great return and defence (and who played well), and winning in straight sets is anything less than right up there in his best performances is blinkered and lacking any insight into the game.

We will have to disagree that the Fed who was struggling with Nadal in 06-08 would have dismissed Novak as easily as you suggest. Novak's skills would have given him a great chance back then in what would have been primarily a baseline battle. I will agree that in 90s conditions Fed's skillset would have made him a huge favourite - there, does that make you feel better?

As for 2008 versus 2014, Fed's stats were:

89-52 (2008)
75-29 (2014)

Novak's were basically on a par with Rafa's. But sure, you must be right and I must be wrong. Couldn't possibly be that the drama and the mists of time are influencing your thinking at all?

lydian wrote:Well that says it all doesn't it Nore.
Murray dropped Lendl because he just didn't want to follow that approach any more. He wanted to play tennis the way he used to know and enjoy, and not stress his body & mind in the process!

Then again you could actually believe Lendl or Murray on the fact that Murray wanted more of Lendl's time and Lendl would not commit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/28924887

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/10713034/Andy-Murray-admits-splitting-up-with-his-coach-Ivan-Lendl-left-him-gutted.html


but I suppose that doesn't suit the agenda.

The fact that Ivan has not taken on another player since Andy so far would to me indicate that he does not want to commit to a time consuming coach role.

Nore Staat wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:What were those other reasons for straight sets losses though?

I think it was associated with a lack of something in Murrays game - he wasn't able to impose himself on Federer etc - his game broke down under pressure in particular the FH - so these elements were focussed on.  Someone will need to go and trawl Lendls interviews and writings to see if he mentions what he specifically worked on with Murray.  In the absence of that I go along with Lydian in assuming Lendl worked on his FH and serving and ... not sure what else.

Mentality as I have said all along.

Back on topic, there seems to be a suggestion here that Andy has lessened the power post Lendl. That isn't the case. As we saw against Rafa in his last match, his game is still focussed on using his flat hitting off both wings as his primary game style. All he has changed under Mauresmo is to add a bit more variety - a few more slices, net approaches, drop shots. The changes aren't massive (and arguably he should be using them more) but they are ones which should help his game. They certainly haven't taken it backwards.

Born Slippy, Emanci; on the topic of Federer playing his 'best ever match' at Wimbledon 2016 SF and playing to such a high level in 2014 final.. I think I would agree with Emancipator there actually.
It's true Federer's overall product was great, but I feel the fact his serving was ridiculous in both matches perhaps covered up for some drop in his speed and movement. And that can make a huge difference in a rally, meaning Federer can't take as many balls on his forehand and is outmanoeuvred more easily.

No BS, not lessened the power...but using more variety in combination with the power. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, as I said yesterday.
This is an avenue he never really fully explored as the power was added, he traded the variety horse for the power horse without trying to ride both.

My "agenda" Calder is to show that Murray has changed his approach given the results suggest so. I posited that the gremlins in his technique combined with the Lendl approach made him redline his game and exacerbate those glitches further - leading to mental and physical strain. In combination with this, he lost his unique range of variety - and it was the variety that ACTUALLY gave him nearly 50/50 wins vs the big 4 up to end of 2012.

Yes I hear people bleating on about winning 2 slams and an OG during the Lendl years but he was reaching finals before. For 2 of those finals he was enormously helped by gales and a knackered Federer, so had those factors come into play 2-3 years earlier he'd have won slams sooner. Despite all this, I actually think the future is POSITIVE for Murray if he can combine these 2 elements with the added benefit of not needing to redline power all the time and wear his body out, as Lendl was probably doing drilling him over and over.

I'll make it even clearer. I used to really like watching Murray when he bamboozled the top guys with dinks, lobs, slices, ghost-ins to the net, etc...he was a breath of fresh air and frustrated the hell out of Federer, Roddick, etc. His only weakness was physical weakness...which led to mental weakness...in longer 5 set matches. So McLagan, et al...ending in Lendl...drove him down the power/muscle route and with that he increasingly lost focus and use of the variety (aka talent) that made him more unique in the pursuit to turn him into another Nadal/Djokovic. Except he's not as good as them playing their game. In other words he lost what was truly special about his game...and I'm amazed his fans don't call that, they seem more interested in silverware that him as a unique, talented player.

So in summary, what has changed is that he's going back to see if the use of variety & junk ball tennis (which he's really good at) plus power can open new doors for him. Doors which he should have investigated earlier tbh. He's also working on flattening out the FH...a stroke which is probably more natural for him given his faster court underpinnings. Again, he went down the higher spin route to compete with Nadal but his FH isn't as robust, especially DTL or in stretched positions where his weight goes backwards more. We saw he could hit flat really well against Nadal at MC for a time.

Murray 3.0 (2016) wants Murray 1.0 (2008) back with some power from the 2.0 (2013) phase. That's crystal clear to me now and this is what this thread has been about...where does Murray go now back on what's been happening.

Of course IMBL - that may well be correct (albeit the tiny number of UEs compared to 2008 suggests otherwise). However, on quicker surfaces an improvement in serve in my view is sufficient to compensate for a small decrease in movement.

I can happily accept that people have different opinions but the fact is that Fed played great in both those matches. It isn't an open and shut case that he played better in 2008. Indeed, the stats (and the evidence of my own eyes) suggest otherwise. It's hardly "bizarre nonsense" to suggest a player who made an equivalent number of winners but hit half the number of UEs played better.

We could have a decent debate about when Fed played better than the Murray SF but an example is, of course, conspicuously lacking. The answer is just "he must have been better when he was 25".