Why does Andy Murray lose to Novak Djokovic more often than not?

Murray has a poor head to head with Djokovic is it because Djokovic is physically stronger conditioning wise or is Novak better technically, which is more important for this question we are asking which of these two are more important. There can be other factors but which of these two are more important.

socal Murray is spreading ****. But if it's any consolation he is only spreading **** on players he can't beat. Perhaps it is a cunning plan to force them to let him win. ie beat the nice, sweet, innocent, Murray and you look like Armstrong

In terms of spreading **** he has a long way to go to catch you up in that field!

Someone should ask Murray why he loses to Djokovic.  Maybe someone could look at the pre and post match intervals he gives ahead of and after a match with Djokovic.  Results demonstrate Djokovic is significantly the better player in grand slam tournaments.  There is clearly a skills component to that, but movement and anticipation and ability to think ahead in point construction is also a major factor imo.  I think Murray has the better first serve.  

Personally I think it is Djokovic's movement and anticipation and ability to focus that is the major factor in his wins over Murray.  He is in the better position for the ball strike etc.

I am not sufficiently technically knowledgeable enough to confidently compare their raw ball striking abilities.  Murray clearly has a weak second serve and that tends to be the first thing that breaks down in his game when he is put under pressure.  Djokovic tends to be in the right position when striking the ball whereas Murray tends to be in the wrong position.  Djokovic tends to have more in his shots than Murray.

Because he's not as good at tennis.

There should be a new poll entitled "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Djokovic does all the important parts of the modern baseline game better.

The things Murray does better, he rarely uses.

The same reason djoko beats fed and rafa more often than not. And why rafa beats fed more often than not. Pound for pound they're not quite as effective as tennis players than the other. They all do some things better than others but not enough to offset the massive advantage that novak has in terms of baseline discipline and return ability.

More than that now novak has improved his serve and net game. Their advantages over him are much less. Hm has this one on the money

It's all in the hips.

Simply Djokovic is a more efficient and slick mover. And before this thread gets shouted down on for the simple mention of movement, just bear in mind that Murray burns out quicker than Djokovic hence why when Djokovic wins the first set in their meetings the writing is usually on the walls. The rare exception I felt otherwise was their FO encounter last year when I thought Murray would do it!

Maybe someone could analyse the matches between Murray and Djokovic on a set by set basis:
first set, second set etc. But also analyse "last set". Analyse according to the usual parameters including "point winners" and "point errors".

I agree with those that say Djokovic has a more efficient baseline game.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Simply Djokovic is a more efficient and slick mover.

Nature made them both like whippets.

Murray's made himself more like a pitbull.

Why does any player lose to Djokovic more often that not at present. It's because he is better than them.

The answer to the question "Why is Djokovic better than Murray" is not "because Djokovic is better than Murray" - that is just restating the fact or the presumption giving rise to the question.

Murray himself + all his coaches have to ask "Why is Djokovic better than Murray".  Only when that question is answered with specific reasons can Murray and his coaches then work towards improving Murray so that Djokovic is no longer better than Murray.

In this instance "better" means winning tennis matches between Djokovic and Murray at Grand Slam tournaments.

Think you're right. The key weak areas are serve, which is THE main problem, murrays biggest weakness plays into novaks strength, and topspin rallies with no variation. Murray needs to mix up, he has a better slice, and slice still puts novak in trouble sometimes, but NEVER uses it

Not claiming to be a tennis expert. But my view is that the main reason is Djokovic is just mentally better balanced : he doesn't stress over a couple of bad points , just keeps on with the game he knows he can play - whereas Andy is forever berating himself when things don't happen the way he wants ...
I realize that , for Andy , it may well be that he needs the emotional release of yelling at himself , glaring at his supporting team box , etc to get the best out of himself...and it mostly works for him against other opponents.  But Djokovic is simply the best at the moment ; and I feel that , while the physical difference between them isn't that great , Novak's better mental stability is always likely to give him the edge.
Andy's chances seem to me to rest on getting right on top in the first set and hopefully riding that all the way...

HM Murdock wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Simply Djokovic is a more efficient and slick mover.

Nature made them both like whippets.

Murray's made himself more like a pitbull.

i'd say a staffy!!

You could ask the same question - why does Rafa Nadal lose to Novak more often than not (he has lost 9 out of their last 10 meetings!)

Could it be because he is a better player possibly!!!

Funny enough, I think fitness is a big part of why Djokovic gained mastery over Nadal. For a long time Rafa was able to go to the grinding game and know he would kill the other guy. When Djokovic improved his ability to play forever I think it set in Rafa's mind that it was now on him to end rallies.

Alongside general match-up advantages for Djokovic, that did it. Rafa countered effectively with a more effective attacking game but he's not been able to physically sustain it.

Endurance, and the confidence that comes from it to play on your own terms, is a gigantic influence. I'd say that in tennis it's a much bigger factor than the vast majority of sports.

I am clearly the best player of all time.  It is just the tools that I have let me down and my coaches have let me down, and my doctors have let me down, and my parents have let me down, and my friends have let me down, and I can't afford a top quality racket, and the tennis court I train in has these bumps in the ground, and I can't afford the oxygen tents and trips to high altitude, nor those special strings that cause the ball to spin.  

Despite all of this I would still have won every match if it wasn't for the dodgy umpire and dodgy lines people and for the distraction caused by the jeering crowd. When I say crowd I mean my opponents mate Sid and his barking dog. You know I could have been a contender.

sportslover wrote:You could ask the same question - why does Rafa Nadal lose to Novak more often than not (he has lost 9 out of their last 10 meetings!)

Could it be because he is a better player possibly!!!

It is true that Rafa lost to Novak more often than not in 2015 and 2011. But the reason for that can't be because he is a better player otherwise Novak wouldn't have lost to Rafa more often than not between 2006-2011 and 2011-2015

hawkeye wrote:

sportslover wrote:You could ask the same question - why does Rafa Nadal lose to Novak more often than not (he has lost 9 out of their last 10 meetings!)

Could it be because he is a better player possibly!!!

It is true that Rafa lost to Novak more often than not in 2015 and 2011. But the reason for that can't be because he is a better player otherwise Novak wouldn't have lost to Rafa more often than not between 2006-2011 and 2011-2015

I think it's a stylistic match up that, all things being equal, favours Djokovic.

The gap is small enough though, that one player being fitter and/or more confident can tilt it.

So we get:

fit, confident Djokovic vs less fit, less confident Nadal = comfortable win for Djokovic

fit confident, Nadal vs less fit, less confident Djokovic = narrow-ish win for Nadal.

In fact, now I check the stats, the numbers are stark. In their last 11 matches, Rafa has only won a set in two of them (with the significant recognition that he won 3 sets in the most important one - RG14 final).

Nore Staat wrote:Maybe someone could analyse the matches between Murray and Djokovic on a set by set basis:
first set, second set etc.  But also analyse "last set".  Analyse according to the usual parameters including "point winners" and "point errors".

I agree with those that say Djokovic has a more efficient baseline game.

Off the top of my head, I would say Novak has won 7 of 8 first sets and well, because he has won all of one match since 2015, he would also have lost just once in the deciding set.

alfie wrote:Not claiming to be a tennis expert. But my view is that the main reason is Djokovic is just mentally better balanced : he doesn't stress over a couple of bad points , just keeps on with the game he knows he can play - whereas Andy is forever berating himself when things don't happen the way he wants ...
I realize that , for Andy , it may well be that he needs the emotional release of yelling at himself , glaring at his supporting team box , etc to get the best out of himself...and it mostly works for him against other opponents.  But Djokovic is simply the best at the moment ; and I feel that , while the physical difference between them isn't that great , Novak's better mental stability is always likely to give him the edge.
Andy's chances seem to me to rest on getting right on top in the first set and hopefully riding that all the way...

While I do agree with you that Novak has proved more resilient and mentally tougher on average in big situations and that Novak's demeanor is generally not as negative as Murray's. And I also agree that Murray loses focus and wastes energy in these tirades while simultaneously encouraging his opponents that they are in his head.

However on this thread I would like opinions on which of the two is more important fitness or shots in determining the matchup. Does Murray breakdown physically or is lets say his second serve or FH more likely to falter or not as good? There are others that pointed to movement or other edges I wanted to see, which factor fitness or ball striking is more determinative in the match up. While other factors of course can be important as well.

Good post Alfie, glad you are contributing.

The premise of this thread is extremely unfair to Murray.

He did not say he only loses to Djokovic because he has suspicious fitness. He said he's sometimes wondered how some players can exhibit abnormal fitness.

I don't know why its unfair. We have all this talk for millennia it seems on the evil scourge of too much fitness ruining tennis well then in this match up what is the bigger factor? No one is saying fitness isn't a factor, or that shots aren't a factor, maybe injuries and maybe other things. But of these two factors in the head to head which is more important, and which do some posters seem to focus too much on?

And judging by the results as we speak 4-3 it isn't an unfair question. Unfair questions don't go 57-43 split

Novak is the best player in the world by a mile andI think most people agree that Murray is inferior to Novak in the areas of second serve, consistency on the forehand and aggressive court position. A large chunk of that is mental of course, court position and WTA paced second serves are within his control.

However a lot of the big matches with Novak in last couple of years have followed a similar pattern. 2-3 hours of neck and neck, then Novak sprints off at the end. Mentally and physically, he outlasts him.

I think the mental side is the biggest factor there though. Only with the mentally tough Lendl has Murray actually reached his potential. Not before and not since.

But to answer the question, number 2 is more responsible than number 1, of course.

Djokovic outlasts Murray mentally then physically.

He's also technically better so uses less energy over the course of a match.

Murray = Djokovic-lite.

Nobody beats Murray better than Murray

Haddie-nuff wrote:Nobody  beats Murray better than Murray

Very true, unfortunately.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Nobody  beats Murray better than Murray

I agree.

It is weird though that the forum is awash with three threads to slate Murray who has won two slams, Olympic Gold and Davis Cup. I never recall reading such threads written about a player with a similar record - Leyton Hewitt. In fact the only threads you'll find about him denotes him as  a legend of sorts.

It is a curious subject matter for a thread anyway as nobody has beaten Djokovic as much as Murray -apart from Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Why not scrutinize, say Stan Wawrinka, who has only beaten Novak four times compared to Andy's nine.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Nobody  beats Murray better than Murray

I agree.

It is weird though that the forum is awash with three threads to slate Murray who has won two slams, Olympic Gold and Davis Cup. I never recall reading such threads written about a player with a similar record - Leyton Hewitt. In fact the only threads you'll find about him denotes him as  a legend of sorts.

It is a curious subject matter for a thread anyway as nobody has beaten Djokovic as much as Murray -apart from Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Why not scrutinize, say Stan Wawrinka, who has only beaten Novak four times compared to Andy's nine.

I believe you have misinterpreted the threads.  There is a thread started by Lydian that has gone "technical" trying to explain why Murray is no longer winning grand slams compared to the Lendl era.  There is nuanced debate going on in that thread trying to work out why exactly Fed/Nads/Djo are more successful than Murray - going beyond the simplistic "Cos they're better than Murray".

This thread is a response by Socal from the perceived negativity some have towards Djokovic claiming he wins his matches against Murray because Djokovic is full of ... is physically fitter than Murray.  Socal is putting forward the view that Djokovic wins most of the time (in grand slams in particular) because he is a technically better than Murray.  

So the threads are not slating Murray but are considering why a) Djokovic beats Murray and why b) Feds/Nads/Djo/Wawrinka have superior H2H to Murray post 2013.

Nore Staat wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Nobody  beats Murray better than Murray

I agree.

It is weird though that the forum is awash with three threads to slate Murray who has won two slams, Olympic Gold and Davis Cup. I never recall reading such threads written about a player with a similar record - Leyton Hewitt. In fact the only threads you'll find about him denotes him as  a legend of sorts.

It is a curious subject matter for a thread anyway as nobody has beaten Djokovic as much as Murray -apart from Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Why not scrutinize, say Stan Wawrinka, who has only beaten Novak four times compared to Andy's nine.

I believe you have misinterpreted the threads.  There is a thread started by Lydian that has gone "technical" trying to explain why Murray is no longer winning grand slams compared to the Lendl era.  There is nuanced debate going on in that thread trying to work out why exactly Fed/Nads/Djo are more successful than Murray - going beyond the simplistic "Cos they're better than Murray".

This thread is a response by Socal from the perceived negativity some have towards Djokovic claiming he wins his matches against Murray because Djokovic is full of ... is physically fitter than Murray.  Socal is putting forward the view that Djokovic wins most of the time (in grand slams in particular) because he is a technically better than Murray.  

So the threads are not slating Murray but are considering why a) Djokovic beats Murray and why b) Feds/Nads/Djo/Wawrinka have superior H2H to Murray post 2013.

Hmm no not sure that I have. The thread that has gone technical did not start off in that manner and this one is intended to prove what? That nobody can live with Novak at the moment? No **** Sherlock. If you pardon my French.

I just never recalled this cross examinations of Hewitt's technique or standing against his close peers like we have with Murray.

I believe Murray has the game and the fitness to beat anyone.. the problem with Andy lies with Andy.. he has never had the self discipline, or mental strength ..he sadly has never learned no matter what coach he has had .. and marriage and fatherhood has not improved matter or made him grow up ..I feel he has left it too late. A talent that has always, and will , in my opinion,  remain unharnessed

Murray has almost certainly had a better career than Hewitt given his titles. If you transpose his rrsults to when Hewitt reached number one then murray would have acheived it too, and for a while.

It's probably more who murray has beaten as to why the scrutiny. Despite never being better than the big three. He has often been a real Thorn in their side, which Hewitt didn't do much of.

The fact he could do that would lead to beleive that while Hewitt reached most of his potential, Murray could have been better.

I personally think he's acheived close to everything he could have, he is the number 4 man in a period of three freaks, given that I would say he's reached his EXPECTED haul of trophies but not exceeded it.

temporary21 wrote:Murray has almost certainly had a better career than Hewitt given his titles. If you transpose his rrsults to when Hewitt reached number one then murray would have acheived it too, and for a while.

It's probably more who murray has beaten as to why the scrutiny. Despite never being better than the big three. He has often been a real Thorn in their side, which Hewitt didn't do much of.

The fact he could do that would lead to beleive that while Hewitt reached most of his potential, Murray could have been better.

I personally think he's acheived close to everything he could have, he is the number 4 man in a period of three freaks, given that I would say he's reached his EXPECTED haul of trophies but not exceeded it.

Yes I would agree with that temp.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Nobody  beats Murray better than Murray

I agree.

It is weird though that the forum is awash with three threads to slate Murray who has won two slams, Olympic Gold and Davis Cup. I never recall reading such threads written about a player with a similar record - Leyton Hewitt. In fact the only threads you'll find about him denotes him as  a legend of sorts.

It is a curious subject matter for a thread anyway as nobody has beaten Djokovic as much as Murray -apart from Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Why not scrutinize, say Stan Wawrinka, who has only beaten Novak four times compared to Andy's nine.

Totally missing the point and focusing on the negativity. Why do you think the question is asked?

Step back and think about it. Someone with the remarkable consistency that Andy has had over his career, with achievements to boot. Questions like this are asked because there is an element of surprise that someone with the ability and talent that Andy has and the consistency hasn't 

1) Won more Slams
2) Been World No.1

Don't take such questions or observations as a dig on Andy all the time. Some say mental and others don't and are looking beyond that.

Now you ask why Hewitt or Wawrinka are not "scrutinised" my theory on why Wawrinka isn't because he hasn't had the length of consistency as Andy has. Wawrinka has pounced on the small windows of opportunity that have come his way where Andy has had several and has the same Slam count. Some people would say argue Stan has made more of the chances than Andy.

As for Hewitt, he might not have Olympic Gold, but he has been World No.1 and for a period was the "man" injury and the emergence of new players certainly contributed a lot to him never being the player he was. 

You have said as much as others who follow Andy that he should have a much more impressive CV than he currently does.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Nobody  beats Murray better than Murray

I agree.

It is weird though that the forum is awash with three threads to slate Murray who has won two slams, Olympic Gold and Davis Cup. I never recall reading such threads written about a player with a similar record - Leyton Hewitt. In fact the only threads you'll find about him denotes him as  a legend of sorts.

It is a curious subject matter for a thread anyway as nobody has beaten Djokovic as much as Murray -apart from Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Why not scrutinize, say Stan Wawrinka, who has only beaten Novak four times compared to Andy's nine.

Totally missing the point and focusing on the negativity. Why do you think the question is asked?

Step back and think about it. Someone with the remarkable consistency that Andy has had over his career, with achievements to boot. Questions like this are asked because there is an element of surprise that someone with the ability and talent that Andy has and the consistency hasn't 

1) Won more Slams
2) Been World No.1

Don't take such questions or observations as a dig on Andy all the time. Some say mental and others don't and are looking beyond that.

Now you ask why Hewitt or Wawrinka are not "scrutinised" my theory on why Wawrinka isn't because he hasn't had the length of consistency as Andy has. Wawrinka has pounced on the small windows of opportunity that have come his way where Andy has had several and has the same Slam count. Some people would say argue Stan has made more of the chances than Andy.

As for Hewitt, he might not have Olympic Gold, but he has been World No.1 and for a period was the "man" injury and the emergence of new players certainly contributed a lot to him never being the player he was. 

You have said as much as others who follow Andy that he should have a much more impressive CV than he currently does.

I am honest enough to recognize when others ahead of him in the pecking order have just been too good for him. He has plied his trade at a time when Roger Federer has reached the record total of slam wins and ruled the grass at Wimbledon and when Rafa Nadal has won 14 slams and shown himself to be the greatest and most successful clay court player of all-time. To top that off we have Novak Djokovic now tearing up his own set of records and piling up the slam wins. Now it really puzzles me to read all the posts saying what is wrong with his game ie poor forehand technique, poor mentality, poor second serve etc etc etc and yet people claim surprise he hasn't won more or doesn't beat Djokovic more? How so if he has so many achilles heel's to his game when Novak has virtually none?

As for Hewitt, temp was spot on. Transport Murray back to Hewitt's time and give him his same set of career results and Murray would have been a long term No.1 and conversely ship Hewitt forward in time with his set of career stats and he, like Murray, would never have reached No.1. Okay he has had injuries but so has Murray so lets not go down that route as it is all hypothetical.

And I don't think I've ever really stated how many slams Andy's talent should allow him to win. He waited so long and suffered so many slam heartaches that it was great to see him win the two that he finally did along with his other achievements.

When Hewitt reached no 1, the points were more spread out, meaning one slam and a good run of a couple of months put you very close to obtaining it. Since Federer, the number 1 has almost always been about 40000 points or so ahead of everyone.

Nowadays you need two slams and an average of semis at least in all masters just to be in the picture! It makes the no 1 comparisons not particularly fair. I mean 11 masters titles an OG a dc and 2 slams puts him well above any other 2 slam man, and closer to Jim courier territory (who if often considered a joke, but was a brilliant player, dwarfed in the end by two greats... like Murray).

I mean he has natural disadvantages, hes fiery, which you cant change, and he has a fh and serve technical problem. Add that up and he can be pretty smug about his swag i think, no regrets.

And just to explain my point better. Posters can't have it both ways surely? So which is it to be?

Is Murray's haul of two slams worthy of credit along with his other achievements despite having poor forehand technique (if you listen to posters here), has poor mentality and poor second serve (again something many people here will lay at his door)? Surely, he has done well to win what he has at such a time dominated by such great players?

Or...

Is Murray's haul an under achievement considering his talents? Well if you think he has under achieved then lets hear the positivity about Murray's game? And surely that means his poor forehand, mentality and second serve can't be that bad at all?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Nobody  beats Murray better than Murray

I agree.

It is weird though that the forum is awash with three threads to slate Murray who has won two slams, Olympic Gold and Davis Cup. I never recall reading such threads written about a player with a similar record - Leyton Hewitt. In fact the only threads you'll find about him denotes him as  a legend of sorts.

It is a curious subject matter for a thread anyway as nobody has beaten Djokovic as much as Murray -apart from Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Why not scrutinize, say Stan Wawrinka, who has only beaten Novak four times compared to Andy's nine.

Totally missing the point and focusing on the negativity. Why do you think the question is asked?

Step back and think about it. Someone with the remarkable consistency that Andy has had over his career, with achievements to boot. Questions like this are asked because there is an element of surprise that someone with the ability and talent that Andy has and the consistency hasn't 

1) Won more Slams
2) Been World No.1

Don't take such questions or observations as a dig on Andy all the time. Some say mental and others don't and are looking beyond that.

Now you ask why Hewitt or Wawrinka are not "scrutinised" my theory on why Wawrinka isn't because he hasn't had the length of consistency as Andy has. Wawrinka has pounced on the small windows of opportunity that have come his way where Andy has had several and has the same Slam count. Some people would say argue Stan has made more of the chances than Andy.

As for Hewitt, he might not have Olympic Gold, but he has been World No.1 and for a period was the "man" injury and the emergence of new players certainly contributed a lot to him never being the player he was. 

You have said as much as others who follow Andy that he should have a much more impressive CV than he currently does.

I am honest enough to recognize when others ahead of him in the pecking order have just been too good for him. He has plied his trade at a time when Roger Federer has reached the record total of slam wins and ruled the grass at Wimbledon and when Rafa Nadal has won 14 slams and shown himself to be the greatest and most successful clay court player of all-time. To top that off we have Novak Djokovic now tearing up his own set of records and piling up the slam wins. Now it really puzzles me to read all the posts saying what is wrong with his game ie poor forehand technique, poor mentality, poor second serve etc etc etc and yet people claim surprise he hasn't won more or doesn't beat Djokovic more? How so if he has so many achilles heel's to his game when Novak has virtually none?

As for Hewitt, temp was spot on. Transport Murray back to Hewitt's time and give him his same set of career results and Murray would have been a long term No.1 and conversely ship Hewitt forward in time with his set of career stats and he, like Murray, would never have reached No.1. Okay he has had injuries but so has Murray so lets not go down that route as it is all hypothetical.

And I don't think I've ever really stated how many slams Andy's talent should allow him to win. He waited so long and suffered so many slam heartaches that it was great to see him win the two that he finally did along with his other achievements.

Craig, as one of those who started a thread you are critical about let me clear your mind. This thread was not a knock Murray thread at all, it was thread done because for over a decade we have heard how fitness has ruined tennis. When Roger wins he beats the guy with his shots and talent, when Novak wins he grinds his opponents down physically, at least this is the mythology that a group of what I hold are biased fans view on this issue.

So I did a thread namely because of this dichotomy, which is more about the willful blindness of the fitness conspiracy theorists, and really the only reason I picked Murray is because of LK's post where he said Murray loses to Roger because of his superior variety and he loses to Djokovic because he isn't as fit. So no need to question the motives, I generally like Murray and am a pretty fair neutral to him.

I am going to wade in with a claim that I think is valid in this instance, although the term has caused much controversy in the recent past. Nevertheless I think in this case it is relevant.

Takes a deep breath.

Has second thoughts.

Girds the loins.

Deep breath.

In this instance reference to Lleyton Hewitt is a strawman filleting a red herring. I don't think it is relevant to the debate and for me it merely muddies the waters.

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Nobody  beats Murray better than Murray

I agree.

It is weird though that the forum is awash with three threads to slate Murray who has won two slams, Olympic Gold and Davis Cup. I never recall reading such threads written about a player with a similar record - Leyton Hewitt. In fact the only threads you'll find about him denotes him as  a legend of sorts.

It is a curious subject matter for a thread anyway as nobody has beaten Djokovic as much as Murray -apart from Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Why not scrutinize, say Stan Wawrinka, who has only beaten Novak four times compared to Andy's nine.

Totally missing the point and focusing on the negativity. Why do you think the question is asked?

Step back and think about it. Someone with the remarkable consistency that Andy has had over his career, with achievements to boot. Questions like this are asked because there is an element of surprise that someone with the ability and talent that Andy has and the consistency hasn't 

1) Won more Slams
2) Been World No.1

Don't take such questions or observations as a dig on Andy all the time. Some say mental and others don't and are looking beyond that.

Now you ask why Hewitt or Wawrinka are not "scrutinised" my theory on why Wawrinka isn't because he hasn't had the length of consistency as Andy has. Wawrinka has pounced on the small windows of opportunity that have come his way where Andy has had several and has the same Slam count. Some people would say argue Stan has made more of the chances than Andy.

As for Hewitt, he might not have Olympic Gold, but he has been World No.1 and for a period was the "man" injury and the emergence of new players certainly contributed a lot to him never being the player he was. 

You have said as much as others who follow Andy that he should have a much more impressive CV than he currently does.

I am honest enough to recognize when others ahead of him in the pecking order have just been too good for him. He has plied his trade at a time when Roger Federer has reached the record total of slam wins and ruled the grass at Wimbledon and when Rafa Nadal has won 14 slams and shown himself to be the greatest and most successful clay court player of all-time. To top that off we have Novak Djokovic now tearing up his own set of records and piling up the slam wins. Now it really puzzles me to read all the posts saying what is wrong with his game ie poor forehand technique, poor mentality, poor second serve etc etc etc and yet people claim surprise he hasn't won more or doesn't beat Djokovic more? How so if he has so many achilles heel's to his game when Novak has virtually none?

As for Hewitt, temp was spot on. Transport Murray back to Hewitt's time and give him his same set of career results and Murray would have been a long term No.1 and conversely ship Hewitt forward in time with his set of career stats and he, like Murray, would never have reached No.1. Okay he has had injuries but so has Murray so lets not go down that route as it is all hypothetical.

And I don't think I've ever really stated how many slams Andy's talent should allow him to win. He waited so long and suffered so many slam heartaches that it was great to see him win the two that he finally did along with his other achievements.

Craig, as one of those who started a thread you are critical about let me clear your mind. This thread was not a knock Murray thread at all, it was thread done because for over a decade we have heard how fitness has ruined tennis. When Roger wins he beats the guy with his shots and talent, when Novak wins he grinds his opponents down physically, at least this is the mythology that a group of what I hold are biased fans view on this issue.

So I did a thread namely because of this dichotomy, which is more about the willful blindness of the fitness conspiracy theorists, and really the only reason I picked Murray is because of LK's post where he said Murray loses to Roger because of his superior variety and he loses to Djokovic because he isn't as fit. So no need to question the motives, I generally like Murray and am a pretty fair neutral to him.

Well for me fitness isn't the issue here. I haven't opted for an answer in the poll as I don't think either option is apt. Murray needs everything in his game to click to win slams and that hasn't happened often enough. He needs his first serve to fire, his aggression levels to be up (helped if first serve fires) and he needs to remain mentally in the right frame of mind. If one of those three has dips it impacts his game far more than Novak, Roger and Rafa. That is why his slam count is as it is.

I really couldn't agree more.
Andy has all the tools . he is incredibly fit.. neither of these are the issue
John McEnroe has said in the past Andy is a complete player.
Self belief and self control are the things Andy needs more than anything else the rest would follow

Even if one has a complete toolbox that doesn't necessarily mean the wonky shelf will be fixed properly.

Nore Staat wrote:Even if one has a complete toolbox that doesn't necessarily mean the wonky shelf will be fixed

properly.

You may not have intended to do so but you have made my point.

Socal's argument is that Djokovic is a more skilful, more technically competent craftsman than Murray.

Nore Staat wrote:Socal's argument is that Djokovic is a more skilful, more technically competent craftsman than Murray.

No I'd say he is just more consistent and brings his best onto court (all-round wise) more often than Murray can.

Haddie-nuff wrote:I really couldn't agree more.
Andy has all the tools . he is incredibly fit.. neither of these are the issue
John McEnroe has said in the past Andy is a complete player.
Self belief and self control are the things Andy needs more than anything else the rest would follow

Murray doesn't possess a dictating forehand. I've said this before and the response has often been a video of Murray hitting the stuffing out of a ball in some low percentage play. That is not what I mean! Also he has a high risk first serve and one of the weakest 2nd serves on the pro tour. Considering this he has done very well but no way could he be described as a "complete" player with these huge gaping holes in his game. What has helped him is that so many pro players are so slow on the uptake that with Murray you have to play to the forehand and not the backhand. I think his disruptive play is more a help than a hindrance (to Murray himself that is).

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Nobody  beats Murray better than Murray

I agree.

It is weird though that the forum is awash with three threads to slate Murray who has won two slams, Olympic Gold and Davis Cup. I never recall reading such threads written about a player with a similar record - Leyton Hewitt. In fact the only threads you'll find about him denotes him as  a legend of sorts.

It is a curious subject matter for a thread anyway as nobody has beaten Djokovic as much as Murray -apart from Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Why not scrutinize, say Stan Wawrinka, who has only beaten Novak four times compared to Andy's nine.

Totally missing the point and focusing on the negativity. Why do you think the question is asked?

Step back and think about it. Someone with the remarkable consistency that Andy has had over his career, with achievements to boot. Questions like this are asked because there is an element of surprise that someone with the ability and talent that Andy has and the consistency hasn't 

1) Won more Slams
2) Been World No.1

Don't take such questions or observations as a dig on Andy all the time. Some say mental and others don't and are looking beyond that.

Now you ask why Hewitt or Wawrinka are not "scrutinised" my theory on why Wawrinka isn't because he hasn't had the length of consistency as Andy has. Wawrinka has pounced on the small windows of opportunity that have come his way where Andy has had several and has the same Slam count. Some people would say argue Stan has made more of the chances than Andy.

As for Hewitt, he might not have Olympic Gold, but he has been World No.1 and for a period was the "man" injury and the emergence of new players certainly contributed a lot to him never being the player he was. 

You have said as much as others who follow Andy that he should have a much more impressive CV than he currently does.

I am honest enough to recognize when others ahead of him in the pecking order have just been too good for him. He has plied his trade at a time when Roger Federer has reached the record total of slam wins and ruled the grass at Wimbledon and when Rafa Nadal has won 14 slams and shown himself to be the greatest and most successful clay court player of all-time. To top that off we have Novak Djokovic now tearing up his own set of records and piling up the slam wins. Now it really puzzles me to read all the posts saying what is wrong with his game ie poor forehand technique, poor mentality, poor second serve etc etc etc and yet people claim surprise he hasn't won more or doesn't beat Djokovic more? How so if he has so many achilles heel's to his game when Novak has virtually none?

As for Hewitt, temp was spot on. Transport Murray back to Hewitt's time and give him his same set of career results and Murray would have been a long term No.1 and conversely ship Hewitt forward in time with his set of career stats and he, like Murray, would never have reached No.1. Okay he has had injuries but so has Murray so lets not go down that route as it is all hypothetical.

And I don't think I've ever really stated how many slams Andy's talent should allow him to win. He waited so long and suffered so many slam heartaches that it was great to see him win the two that he finally did along with his other achievements.

Craig, as one of those who started a thread you are critical about let me clear your mind. This thread was not a knock Murray thread at all, it was thread done because for over a decade we have heard how fitness has ruined tennis. When Roger wins he beats the guy with his shots and talent, when Novak wins he grinds his opponents down physically, at least this is the mythology that a group of what I hold are biased fans view on this issue.

So I did a thread namely because of this dichotomy, which is more about the willful blindness of the fitness conspiracy theorists, and really the only reason I picked Murray is because of LK's post where he said Murray loses to Roger because of his superior variety and he loses to Djokovic because he isn't as fit. So no need to question the motives, I generally like Murray and am a pretty fair neutral to him.

Well for me fitness isn't the issue here. I haven't opted for an answer in the poll as I don't think either option is apt. Murray needs everything in his game to click to win slams and that hasn't happened often enough. He needs his first serve to fire, his aggression levels to be up (helped if first serve fires) and he needs to remain mentally in the right frame of mind. If one of those three has dips it impacts his game far more than Novak, Roger and Rafa. That is why his slam count is as it is.

Well that is the point Craig, I am not saying one of these two choices is the only factors in Murray's h2h record with Djokovic. I am saying and the OP states it carefully that of the two which IS MORE important in the matchup, not that only these two factors matter. I mean I am not a fitness conspiracy theorist. So as you mention, when Murray's first serve is firing he is tougher for anyone to beat. But in his matchup with Djokovic if he doesn't hit a high first serve percentage he often gets his second serve abused. Therefore by highlighting the serve in your own post you seem to be leaning to what I am saying that shots and consistent execution of shots is what determines the match up MORE than the differences in cardiovascular fitness.

Well it is certainly not fitness as his two slam wins have come in lengthy finals against Djokovic so that can be ruled out. But still don't see any option up in this poll that I'd agree with. If you were to add an option that it is down to consistency then I'd opt for that.