Andy Murray - Reasons For Optimism

So Andy Murray lost in four sets yesterday but lets remember a few things here. He won his first set on grass against Rafael Nadal who is one of the greatest players of all-time. Only a handful of tennis players in history match up to Nadal so to belittle Andy's achievements is extremely. Now the reasons to be positive.

Andy's strongest surface is hard court, followed by grass and then clay. Well so far this year Andy has had his best ever season on clay followed by his best ever season on grass and so if he can continue that trend on the hard courts then anything is possible at the US Open and likewise in the Australian Open early next year. As long as he continues to improve then there will be increased hope in the future after all he isn't a million miles away at the moment.

What disappoints me is that Andy beat nadal at US08 and since then rafa has made such an impressive progress but we are still waiting on Andy for past 3 years.
Andy should have won this time, he has the crowd support, the game to take on to Nadal, he just did not execute it and that's what is disappointing.

There is definitely hope but Andy should have been the best after Federer and not Nadal or Djoko.

Hope you're right Craig.

Agree that Murray played brilliantly in the first set, but he seemed to lose it mentally in the next two, allowing Nadal to take him apart. He still seems prone to letting mistakes get to him and affect his game.

It was disappointing, as he's shown that when he's on his game he can beat the top 3. I think he needs to change his mental preparation and maybe not have so many people shouting advice at him on court.

Still, it was a better performance than last time (when he lost in straight sets). Hopefully he'll come away wiser and find a way to keep his composure and keep playing his best tennis, when the pressure's on.

But Murray needs to fix his fitness. He is constantly injured....especially in slams.

His main weakness is that he is not build to do as much running as Djoko and Nadal but yet plays that style against the weaker players and that takes its toll in 6 or 7 5 setters over 2 weeks.

Tenez wrote:But Murray needs to fix his fitness. He is constantly injured....especially in slams.

His main weakness is that he is not build to do as much running as Djoko and Nadal but yet plays that style against the weaker players and that takes its toll in 6 or 7 5 setters over 2 weeks.

slightly disagree I think it is the mental toughness which Andy lacks. Nadal had 7 break points and he converted 5 of them. Had Andy saved few of them, he would not have lost that badly and who knows that match might have gone into 5 set. Andy had 2 break points in 4thset but Andy did not convert them, had it been Nadal he would have converted them.

He is not so far away as we saw in the first set yesterday. He just needs to increase his consistency as if he had maintained his high level of performance from the first set he proved he has the game to beat Rafael Nadal. Nadal (one of the greatest players of all-time) was just more consistently excellent.

He did OK in that 1st set, he's just got to find a way to keep that going for 5 sets.

The brutal truth is that he's just not quite good enough. No shame in being the fourth best in the world at anything, but he's reached the semi finals and been beaten by the better player. Again, no shame in that as Nadal is one of the best ever.

Hopefully he can go away and improve his game and get up there and challenge the top two/three. People calling for him to attack more may have a point, but I don't think it is as easy as that. Murray is a very clever player and if that worked I am sure he would have done it. Attacking more obviously leads to more mistakes, something even Federer is finding difficult these days and Murray will probably never have the attacking game of Federer.

I know he won a set against Rafa but so did Mardy Fish and Del Potro.

For the fans, at least we will get to see the final between the two best players in the world right now.

Wrong Guest - he just not quite consistent enough.

watching murray won the 1st set against nadal ignited the same feeling in me when manutd scored against barca

it just delaying the inevitable loss.

a good side is,,murray said in press he wants to improve more

Yes ebar and the good thing is there are areas to improve in which is encouraging. More so than if he had lost playing his absolute best.

I really hope you are right Craig but am beginning to doubt whether Andy can take that step up to be a GS winner. Yes he appears to be getting better but when was the last time that he beat one of the top three. When they are on their game it appears that their level is at a higher level which they can sustain for a longer period.
Can't remember who said it yesterday (think it might have been Becker) but if Nadal has missed that shot in the second set it would not have bothered him for more than a few seconds. However Andy's performance took a huge dip for enough time for Nadal to be in complete control. Yes Nadal was playing excellent tennis but Andy was not playing at his best during that period.
Don't know what the answer is as there is not much wrong. Possibly a win against either Nadal or Djokovic would give him the confidence lift he needs to beat these guys more regularly and win the slam he deserves.

"Andy Murray - Reasons For Optimism"


The best reason I can come up with right now after seeing Andy's disappointing defeat yesterday where after winning the first set and nearly having 2 set points to go a break up in the second set (if only that forehand managed to clip the line) is that he is only 24 years old and with someone like Roger Federer currently being 29 and not likely to be around in 4 or 5 years time, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic out of the current fab 4 who arguably if they had played in different time periods/eras would have won many more slams that is the case up to now (e.g. Federer now have won the French Open 5 times if there was no Nadal). Anyway take the scenario prior to the start of Wimbledon in 4/5 years time whereby Federer has retired from playing, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic from the fab 4 who are currently higher in the rankings that Murray, and if Nadal and Djokovic have to pull out of playing Wimbledon due to serious injury as happened to Nadal before Wimbledon in 2009, that will make Andy as the top seed and the red-hot favourite to win Wimbledon. So there are definitely good causes for optimism for Andy's chances of winning Wimbledon one day!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Wrong Guest - he just not quite consistent enough.

Same goes for Mardy Fish too.

gboycottnut wrote:"Andy Murray - Reasons For Optimism"


The best reason I can come up with right now after seeing Andy's disappointing defeat yesterday where after winning the first set and nearly having 2 set points to go a break up in the second set (if only that forehand managed to clip the line) is that he is only 24 years old and with someone like Roger Federer currently being 29 and not likely to be around in 4 or 5 years time, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic out of the current fab 4 who arguably if they had played in different time periods/eras would have won many more slams that is the case up to now (e.g. Federer now have won the French Open 5 times if there was no Nadal). Anyway take the scenario prior to the start of Wimbledon in 4/5 years time whereby Federer has retired from playing, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic from the fab 4 who are currently higher in the rankings that Murray, and if Nadal and Djokovic have to pull out of playing Wimbledon due to serious injury as happened to Nadal before Wimbledon in 2009, that will make Andy as the top seed and the red-hot favourite to win Wimbledon. So there are definitely good causes for optimism for Andy's chances of winning Wimbledon one day!

There will always be a number three/four in the world that thinks "if only" but the answer isn't to hope they get injured/retire. He needs to up his game to their level.

Look what Djokovic has done this year. This time last year would anyone have thought he would be world number one?

gboycottnut wrote:"Andy Murray - Reasons For Optimism"


The best reason I can come up with right now after seeing Andy's disappointing defeat yesterday where after winning the first set and nearly having 2 set points to go a break up in the second set (if only that forehand managed to clip the line) is that he is only 24 years old and with someone like Roger Federer currently being 29 and not likely to be around in 4 or 5 years time, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic out of the current fab 4 who arguably if they had played in different time periods/eras would have won many more slams that is the case up to now (e.g. Federer now have won the French Open 5 times if there was no Nadal). Anyway take the scenario prior to the start of Wimbledon in 4/5 years time whereby Federer has retired from playing, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic from the fab 4 who are currently higher in the rankings that Murray, and if Nadal and Djokovic have to pull out of playing Wimbledon due to serious injury as happened to Nadal before Wimbledon in 2009, that will make Andy as the top seed and the red-hot favourite to win Wimbledon. So there are definitely good causes for optimism for Andy's chances of winning Wimbledon one day!

But then there should be someone else who will catch up with these guys or might take over e.g. delpo or tomic or raonic!

wow wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:"Andy Murray - Reasons For Optimism"


The best reason I can come up with right now after seeing Andy's disappointing defeat yesterday where after winning the first set and nearly having 2 set points to go a break up in the second set (if only that forehand managed to clip the line) is that he is only 24 years old and with someone like Roger Federer currently being 29 and not likely to be around in 4 or 5 years time, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic out of the current fab 4 who arguably if they had played in different time periods/eras would have won many more slams that is the case up to now (e.g. Federer now have won the French Open 5 times if there was no Nadal). Anyway take the scenario prior to the start of Wimbledon in 4/5 years time whereby Federer has retired from playing, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic from the fab 4 who are currently higher in the rankings that Murray, and if Nadal and Djokovic have to pull out of playing Wimbledon due to serious injury as happened to Nadal before Wimbledon in 2009, that will make Andy as the top seed and the red-hot favourite to win Wimbledon. So there are definitely good causes for optimism for Andy's chances of winning Wimbledon one day!

But then there should be someone else who will catch up with these guys or might take over e.g. delpo or tomic or raonic!

Whilst Del Potro, Tomic and Raonic are excellent players, they aren't really in the same class as the current fab 4 each of whom if they had played in different eras from each other could make serious claims as being the greatest tennis player ever, including even Andy Murray who would have been in 3 Wimbledon finals by now had there been no Nadal.

gboycottnut wrote:

wow wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:"Andy Murray - Reasons For Optimism"


The best reason I can come up with right now after seeing Andy's disappointing defeat yesterday where after winning the first set and nearly having 2 set points to go a break up in the second set (if only that forehand managed to clip the line) is that he is only 24 years old and with someone like Roger Federer currently being 29 and not likely to be around in 4 or 5 years time, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic out of the current fab 4 who arguably if they had played in different time periods/eras would have won many more slams that is the case up to now (e.g. Federer now have won the French Open 5 times if there was no Nadal). Anyway take the scenario prior to the start of Wimbledon in 4/5 years time whereby Federer has retired from playing, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic from the fab 4 who are currently higher in the rankings that Murray, and if Nadal and Djokovic have to pull out of playing Wimbledon due to serious injury as happened to Nadal before Wimbledon in 2009, that will make Andy as the top seed and the red-hot favourite to win Wimbledon. So there are definitely good causes for optimism for Andy's chances of winning Wimbledon one day!

But then there should be someone else who will catch up with these guys or might take over e.g. delpo or tomic or raonic!

Whilst Del Potro, Tomic and Raonic are excellent players, they aren't really in the same class as the current fab 4 each of whom if they had played in different eras from each other could make serious claims as being the greatest tennis player ever, including even Andy Murray who would have been in 3 Wimbledon finals by now had there been no Nadal.

Del Potro has claim to being a better player than Andy Murray so far in his career.

Guest82 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

wow wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:"Andy Murray - Reasons For Optimism"


The best reason I can come up with right now after seeing Andy's disappointing defeat yesterday where after winning the first set and nearly having 2 set points to go a break up in the second set (if only that forehand managed to clip the line) is that he is only 24 years old and with someone like Roger Federer currently being 29 and not likely to be around in 4 or 5 years time, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic out of the current fab 4 who arguably if they had played in different time periods/eras would have won many more slams that is the case up to now (e.g. Federer now have won the French Open 5 times if there was no Nadal). Anyway take the scenario prior to the start of Wimbledon in 4/5 years time whereby Federer has retired from playing, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic from the fab 4 who are currently higher in the rankings that Murray, and if Nadal and Djokovic have to pull out of playing Wimbledon due to serious injury as happened to Nadal before Wimbledon in 2009, that will make Andy as the top seed and the red-hot favourite to win Wimbledon. So there are definitely good causes for optimism for Andy's chances of winning Wimbledon one day!

But then there should be someone else who will catch up with these guys or might take over e.g. delpo or tomic or raonic!

Whilst Del Potro, Tomic and Raonic are excellent players, they aren't really in the same class as the current fab 4 each of whom if they had played in different eras from each other could make serious claims as being the greatest tennis player ever, including even Andy Murray who would have been in 3 Wimbledon finals by now had there been no Nadal.

Del Potro has claim to being a better player than Andy Murray so far in his career.

But Andy has generally had the better of Del Potro every time they have played against each other.

Think it is too early for Tomic and Raonic to be challenging for the number 4 slot. Maybe a year or so down the line we will see how consistent they are and how their game improves. However in my opinion Del Potro will be the one who will really challenge. If it had not been for his injury he would have been top 5 for the past couple of years.

I think what is surprising is the lack of praise for his attacking game yesterday. Take last year's encounter in the first set, he played defensively on the Nadal serve and played for the tiebreaker and it gave him limited chances and points to win when required. Yesterday in the first set, he got 80% of Nadal's first serves in play. That shows how attacking he was. He knew he needed the first set and he took by attacking Nadal. That for me is what has been encouraging from Murray since the slump after the AO final.

It would've paid for Murray to slightly go defensive in the first 6 games of the 3rd set as he lost some rythym after that FH opportunity in the 2nd set on the Nadal serve to bring up break points. It was encouraging. Andy attacked the BH consistently and when he got Nadal on his FH in the first 2 sets, he was wayward. There is no doubt that there is a gulf in class between Murray and Nadal. Murray shows the right attitude in wanting to improve. His FH is nearly there to become a weapon. It needs more consistentcy when going for the heavier flatter FH. His 2nd serve started to break down after the 3rd and 4th set.

He has had a great season. 1 GS Final, 2 GS Semi Finals. All roads lead to the US Open where I am hoping can he go one step further.

Even though the hard courts are his best surface the past two U.S Opens have been poor for him with earlyish exits against players he should have beaten. Hopefully he will at least get to the latter stages this year.

Is it time for Andy to finally adress the coaching situation. Not having had a full time coach for the past year has not really affected him results wise but apart from the clay court season he has not moved forward on the other surfaces. A top class full time coach may be what is needed to take that extra step. It must be worth trying at least.

gboycottnut wrote:

Guest82 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

wow wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:"Andy Murray - Reasons For Optimism"


The best reason I can come up with right now after seeing Andy's disappointing defeat yesterday where after winning the first set and nearly having 2 set points to go a break up in the second set (if only that forehand managed to clip the line) is that he is only 24 years old and with someone like Roger Federer currently being 29 and not likely to be around in 4 or 5 years time, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic out of the current fab 4 who arguably if they had played in different time periods/eras would have won many more slams that is the case up to now (e.g. Federer now have won the French Open 5 times if there was no Nadal). Anyway take the scenario prior to the start of Wimbledon in 4/5 years time whereby Federer has retired from playing, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic from the fab 4 who are currently higher in the rankings that Murray, and if Nadal and Djokovic have to pull out of playing Wimbledon due to serious injury as happened to Nadal before Wimbledon in 2009, that will make Andy as the top seed and the red-hot favourite to win Wimbledon. So there are definitely good causes for optimism for Andy's chances of winning Wimbledon one day!

But then there should be someone else who will catch up with these guys or might take over e.g. delpo or tomic or raonic!

Whilst Del Potro, Tomic and Raonic are excellent players, they aren't really in the same class as the current fab 4 each of whom if they had played in different eras from each other could make serious claims as being the greatest tennis player ever, including even Andy Murray who would have been in 3 Wimbledon finals by now had there been no Nadal.

Del Potro has claim to being a better player than Andy Murray so far in his career.

But Andy has generally had the better of Del Potro every time they have played against each other.

All in those Micky Mouse tournaments that Murray specialises in, apart from one close meeting in a grand slam when Murray was more developed.
Speaking of Grand Slams...

The comment above yours stands.

Tim Henman would have been in 4 Wimbledon finals by now had there been no Sampras, so I think he can make an even more serious claim as being the greatest tennis player ever had he played in a different era to him.

Pathetic.

gboycottnut wrote:

Guest82 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

wow wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:"Andy Murray - Reasons For Optimism"


The best reason I can come up with right now after seeing Andy's disappointing defeat yesterday where after winning the first set and nearly having 2 set points to go a break up in the second set (if only that forehand managed to clip the line) is that he is only 24 years old and with someone like Roger Federer currently being 29 and not likely to be around in 4 or 5 years time, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic out of the current fab 4 who arguably if they had played in different time periods/eras would have won many more slams that is the case up to now (e.g. Federer now have won the French Open 5 times if there was no Nadal). Anyway take the scenario prior to the start of Wimbledon in 4/5 years time whereby Federer has retired from playing, that only leaves Nadal and Djokovic from the fab 4 who are currently higher in the rankings that Murray, and if Nadal and Djokovic have to pull out of playing Wimbledon due to serious injury as happened to Nadal before Wimbledon in 2009, that will make Andy as the top seed and the red-hot favourite to win Wimbledon. So there are definitely good causes for optimism for Andy's chances of winning Wimbledon one day!

But then there should be someone else who will catch up with these guys or might take over e.g. delpo or tomic or raonic!

Whilst Del Potro, Tomic and Raonic are excellent players, they aren't really in the same class as the current fab 4 each of whom if they had played in different eras from each other could make serious claims as being the greatest tennis player ever, including even Andy Murray who would have been in 3 Wimbledon finals by now had there been no Nadal.

Del Potro has claim to being a better player than Andy Murray so far in his career.

But Andy has generally had the better of Del Potro every time they have played against each other.

Head to head records mean very little. Murray has a positive head to head against Federer, I don't think anyone would argue that Murray has had a better career. Del Potro has won a slam, Murray would trade all of his Masters series titles for one slam.

Head to heads tell us a lot about how the two players match up. True del Potro has won a slam but I am sure if that had been Murray and looking at his career since people would be quick to call it a fluke. Del Potro has a slam but he is on a different planet when it comes to consistency. Ask yourselves how many slam semi finals and finals he has reached compared to Murray and there is no comparison.

As for the previous poster trying to rekindle the myth of Henman being better than Murray well sorry but Murray has already won more titles, been to more slam semis and finals and guess what? Tim openly admits he is not in the same class as Andy. Also Tim had Peter Sampras standing in his way and who else? Murray has Federer (seen by many as the greatest player of all-time), Rafael Nadal (tipped by many to surpass Federer's slam titles total) and Novak Djokovic who recently went unbeaten for half a year and is a multiple slam winner. No contest in that the era Andy is plying his trade is far more competitive than Tim had.

Consiglaire Masters1000 events are not Mickey Mouse they are the next level down from slams and all the top players give their best in them as they count towards rankings and therefore seedings. You say Murray specialises in these. However as he has been in 2 finals and 3 semi finals of the last 7 slam events. I would venture that he does not too badly in these either. He is not as good as the top three I admit that and have already said on this thread that I rate Del Potro as a threat to his number 4 position. Will be interesting to see how that pans out.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Head to heads tell us a lot about how the two players match up. True del Potro has won a slam but I am sure if that had been Murray and looking at his career since people would be quick to call it a fluke. Del Potro has a slam but he is on a different planet when it comes to consistency. Ask yourselves how many slam semi finals and finals he has reached compared to Murray and there is no comparison.

As for the previous poster trying to rekindle the myth of Henman being better than Murray well sorry but Murray has already won more titles, been to more slam semis and finals and guess what? Tim openly admits he is not in the same class as Andy. Also Tim had Peter Sampras standing in his way and who else? Murray has Federer (seen by many as the greatest player of all-time), Rafael Nadal (tipped by many to surpass Federer's slam titles total) and Novak Djokovic who recently went unbeaten for half a year and is a multiple slam winner. No contest in that the era Andy is plying his trade is far more competitive than Tim had.

Del Potro had his breakthrough year in 2009. He lost to Federer in five in the semi finals of the French, then went on to win the US Open (becoming the only man to beat Federer and Nadal in the same slam) - but for his injury I think there is every chance he would be ranked above Murray now. If he's a better player than Murray or not, time will tell but he has certainly achieved more to date.

Sorry but his slam record is nowhere near Murray's for consistency (win aside). This year at Wimbledon was his best performance and was knocked out in the quarters whilst Andy has been in three semis at Wimbledon. I think I am right in saying he has never reached the semis in Australia either whereas Andy has already been in two finals there. The Us Open I think I'd be right in saying that the only semi del Potro has reached was the year he won. Murray has also been in one semi there. Overall at slam Andy has been far more consistent. Nit belittling del Potro as he is the one current player I think that can mix it with the big boys but he must start consistently reaching the final stages of slams.

He does have a coach, Dani Vallverdi.

Del Potro was 20/21 in 2009, he was injured after winning the US Open and is just starting to get back to his best, it's taken Nadal and Djokovic to beat him in the last two slams.

Anything previous to that year and we are looking at his record as a teenager. Had Murray reached any slam semi-finals as a teenager?

Murray reached the Final at the US Open as a 21 year old. There is every chance Del Potro will become a better player than Murray. He probably has heavier weapons to hurt opponents compared to Murray. On the Hardcourts especially.

Time will tell about del Potro and I believe we'll get a good idea how he will develop by his performance at the Us Open. Yes he is hard hitting but his mobility is a problem which is not surprising given his height. On current standings and recent records if you were to ask me to bet on who'll go further at the US Open it would be on Andy Murray.

Murray was tremendous for a set and a bit, and who knows what would have happened if he'd put 'that' forehand away... But what really disappointed me was his reaction to it. His head went down and he imploded. He went from playing as well as i've ever seen him play to losing 7 games in a row.

I have a lot of hope for Murray because in terms of talent he has it all. I think Nadal may have a point that he's the best player not to have won a slam... But it's frustrating that whilst his opponents may not have superior talent (arguable of course) they still have the silverware that he has yet to win.

So what can he do? Well, is he physically as strong as Nadal? No. Can he cover the ground like Nadal or Djokovic? No. Does he produce his absolute best in the biggest pressure moments like Federer? No. When momentum is against him, does he give absolutely everything like his life depends on it to turn it around like Nadal does? No.

It gives me hope because we're not talking about someone who lacks much technically, he has the gifts. But it also worries me slightly because either you are a warrior who relishes the fight or you are not. I know Murray is extremely competetive and despises losing... But he seems to despair in the battle, rather than excel in it.

I'm a massive Murray fan and I really thought this was the one. Maybe it is more likely to be on a hard court, but i really was convinced he'd win this one. I'm usually a lot more optimistic with his prospects, and i've always thought he has too much talent not to win a slam. I still hope that's the case but I'm starting to question it a little.

Del Potro could draw Djokovic/Federer/Nadal in the fourth round of the US Open. I would say Murray is a safer bet to go further because of the seedings.

Del Potro is an animal on those fast US hardcourts though.

Delpotro is already a better player than Andy as he has won a slam and that too by beating rafa and fed.

The sad but inescapable truth is that time is beginning to run out for Murray. It's desperately unfortunate for him that he's around at the same time as the current Nos. 1,2 and 3, but life sometimes deals you a bum hand. In my opinion if he isn't able to win a Major in the next 12 months, he never will. Federer will be gone as a major force, but Nadal & Djokovic will still be there together with Del Potro who will be reaching his prime. This is not to mention the new generation of hungry young bucks -- Tomic, Raonic and Dimitrov -- who will be starting to have a major say in the Slams. The level of competition that Andy faces wil be just as intense as ever.

I certainly don't want him to inherit Mecir's mantle of the "best player never to win a Major", but there's a real danger that's how it might end up.

If that's how it ends up then that's how it ends up. However, Rafa is still going strong at 25 as is Federer at 29 so to give Andy just 12 more months is a bit premature. After all look how long it took Goran Ivanisevic to win a Slam.

Craig -- I'm not writing Andy off, merely pointing out that once he reaches the age of 25, the chances of him making that breakthrough will diminish as each year passes. That's why I think he has a 12-month window.

Of course he could emulate Ivanisevic and do it in the latter part of his career, but that would be quite exceptional given the level of today's competition.

It was very clear from the match that Nadal is simply a far better player than Murray, able to do way more with half the effort. There's no way Murray can stay competitive for the majority of a 5 set match.

I take it you have a selective memory droogle? Andy has beaten Rafa before in five set matches and considering Rafa is one of the greatest players of all-time it's no disgrace to be outplayed by him especially when Andy's own game wasn't up to scratch for a large proportion of yesterday's match.

Caledonian Craig isn't that the problem in itself? As you say "Andy's own game wasn't up to scratch for a large proportion of yesterday's match".

He flatters to deceive too often and when push comes to shove his game disintegrates. Shame really as for a set and a half he looked the real deal. Pity that he ended up about as flat as a two week old can of Irn-Bru.

Nadal was improvising outrageous shots from every position on the court; his game has improved even further despite so far not getting quite the expected results this year. Andy looked a long long way from getting the better of him and it seemed clear that whilst he was able to edge the first set the exertions of doing so would soon play to Nadal's advantage. Nadal can put so much more pace on the ball with so much less effort, eventually that's going to brake the opponent down.

Well that is the area he has to address in his game. He has a mental fragility but that certainly DOES NOT mean he lacks bottle as it takes bottle to keep churning out these impressive slam stats considering the amount of times he has had his heart ripped out in crunch matches. He has all the shots in the book and is known as one of the best returners of serve in the world so now he needs to further improve the mental aspects of his game. I will say again just think what he could achieve if he could address his shortcomings considering he has already been in three slam finals and countless semis with room for improvement to his game.

Craig totally agree. That's what disapponted me yesterday more than the fact he lost. From playing excellent aggressive tennis there was a mistake and his whole level seemed to drop until it was too late to come back. Yes Nadal stepped up his game but he was allowed to build his confidence by Murray playing poorly. He needs to be able to block out bad shots/missed chances and keep a high level of consistency for full matches if he is going to compete with the top three.

I frankly think that Murray has a lot of reasons for optimism. Is he going to be a player who gets into goat conversations or is looked at as one of the handful of greats in this history of the game, probably not. But i would be surprised if Andy doesn't win between 1-3 slams in his future. Fed is in the twilight of his career, Nadal I don't think is a player that is going to be playing into his thirties with the level of injuries. The generation behind Murray in terms of tomic, harrison, del po, and raonic. Are in my mind not serious threats in the near term to the top 4.

I do disagree with gboycottnut on one thing. I don't think people can make the claim that Murray might be the one of the greatest players ever if he played in another era. Or that he might have 3 wimbeldons if not for Nadal. If Murray played in Borg's era would you favor him beating borg, if he played in Pete's era would you favor him over Pete at wimbeldon? If he played in the early 80s would you favor him over Mac? in the late 80s would you favor him over becker or edberg? In short, while Andy is playing in a very tough era to pick up slams I don't think you can make the claim that he might have 3 wimbys if not for Nadal. I don't see Andy murray as #1 type guy in any era maybe except 1999-2003, a very weak and transitional period, when Andre and Pete where leaving the game and Roger hadn't arisen yet. Andy would probably be a 2-5 ranked player in most of the eras in tennis history.

Spot on Calder. He has the talent - no one with tennis knowledge denies that he now needs to work on mental toughness.

Murray to me although the same age as Novak and just a little younger than Rafa seems to be much more mentally immature than his two contemporaries. Talent wise he has all the ingredients. Even while Novak has a bad temper on the court he seems to hold it together and bring his best tennis in the big situations while Andy seems to be more fragile and negative in his outlook.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/james-corrigan-murray-is-far-from-ready-to-be-put-out-to-grass-2305969.html

Reason for optism is that hard court season is yet to start.

Well wow think on......

So far this year he has has:-

A. His best clay court season to date reaching the French Open Semi-Finals.

B. His best grass court season to date winning Queen's and reaching another Wimbledon semi going down in four sets to Nadal.

If he keeps that improvement going into the hard court then every reason to be optomistic considering he has already been a finalist at Flushing Meadows.

wow wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/james-corrigan-murray-is-far-from-ready-to-be-put-out-to-grass-2305969.html

Reason for optism is that hard court season is yet to start.

A good article.