Do you believe Murray has reached his peak level?

I would lean towards the view that whilst Andy will be able to add things to his game, in terms of his position in the rankings and his success at majors I think he'll be 'heading towards the downside'. I expect one of the younger players to start making a big impact in the next year, tomic looks like the most likely at the moment. If Delpo's arm doesn't snap off again then he'll be right up there.

Murray was dismantled by Novak at the AO and he was dismantled by Nadal at Wimbledon. After the first set Nadal outclassed him in every respect, he had so much time on the ball he was playing exhibition tennis.

This year Murray has only beaten two top ten players. Ferrer at the AO and Roddick at Queens. He has lost the last four matches played against Nadal, the last two matches against Djokovic and (even) Federer beat him the last time they played.

Does this show he is at his peak, past his peak or still working towards his peak?

This is just another (anyone But Murray) thread in disguise !

Has Novak reached his peak level ?
Has Rafa reached his peak level?
Has Roger reached his peak level ?
Has Del Potro reached his peak level ?

You tell me JM

Has this thread reached its pique level yet?

hawkeye wrote:This year Murray has only beaten two top ten players. Ferrer at the AO and Roddick at Queens. He has lost the last four matches played against Nadal, the last two matches against Djokovic and (even) Federer beat him the last time they played.

Does this show he is at his peak, past his peak or still working towards his peak?

So when Federer cant beat a player outside the top ten at Wimbledon does that mean his days of reaching slam finals are over

Nore Staat wrote:Has this thread reached its pique level yet?

Oh I doo hope so

sportslover wrote:

hawkeye wrote:This year Murray has only beaten two top ten players. Ferrer at the AO and Roddick at Queens. He has lost the last four matches played against Nadal, the last two matches against Djokovic and (even) Federer beat him the last time they played.

Does this show he is at his peak, past his peak or still working towards his peak?

So when Federer cant beat a player outside the top ten at Wimbledon does that mean his days of reaching slam finals are over

Bit harsh to judge a player by one tournament alone. Havn't seen anyone trying to judge Murray in this way. Of course no one knows if Murray is past his peak but there is little evidence to show he is moving forward. He is at an age when players usually "peak". He is past the age when a player if they are going to wins a first slam. He could still win a slam but IMO it won't be because his leval of play will significantly improve but more likely he will benifit from a little luck.

And whats so bad about that? He is still a great player and has been a consistant number 4 for a few years.

hawkeye wrote:

sportslover wrote:

hawkeye wrote:This year Murray has only beaten two top ten players. Ferrer at the AO and Roddick at Queens. He has lost the last four matches played against Nadal, the last two matches against Djokovic and (even) Federer beat him the last time they played.

Does this show he is at his peak, past his peak or still working towards his peak?

So when Federer cant beat a player outside the top ten at Wimbledon does that mean his days of reaching slam finals are over

Bit harsh to judge a player by one tournament alone. Havn't seen anyone trying to judge Murray in this way. Of course no one knows if Murray is past his peak but there is little evidence to show he is moving forward. He is at an age when players usually "peak". He is past the age when a player if they are going to wins a first slam. He could still win a slam but IMO it won't be because his leval of play will significantly improve but more likely he will benifit from a little luck.

And whats so bad about that? He is still a great player and has been a consistant number 4 for a few years.

Err this year Andy has had his best clay court season to date swiftly followed by his best grass court season to date. And that isn't evidence he is moving forward?

Not to them what doesn't like him CC !!!!

Andy, can still get better, but like I said right now he is in the middle of his prime as a tennis player. Time is definetly not on his side like it was when he 20 or 21. I think with a top notch coach and with hard work he can maybe strengthen his second serve and forehand there is room for improvement, but it is clear that the next 8-12 slams probably represent the extent of Murray's slam window.

remembering how well Murray played against Nole in Rome, I reckon his major improvement needs to happen in his head....but then again, we all know that tennis at the top is mental more than anything else....

noleisthebest wrote:remembering how well Murray played against Nole in Rome, I reckon his major improvement needs to happen in his head....but then again, we all know that tennis at the top is mental more than anything else....

Quite NiTB

But dont tell Tenez that you might just start him off again

Murrays titles so far 17

2006 (1)

2007 (2)

2008 (5)

2009 (6)

2010 (2)

2011 (1) so far

Looks like a normal distribution with the "peak" in 2008 and 2009.

I'll admit I have no emotional investment in Murrays career (sorry Murray fans...) Its just a debate to me. But I do like to win debates if I can.

hawkeye wrote:Murrays titles so far 17

2006 (1)

2007 (2)

2008 (5)

2009 (6)

2010 (2)

2011 (1) so far

Looks like a normal distribution with the "peak" in 2008 and 2009.

I'll admit I have no emotional investment in Murrays career (sorry Murray fans...) Its just a debate to me. But I do like to win debates if I can.

Typical of peopke with underlying anti-Murray traits. They use whatever stick they can to beat him with. Normally it is the fact that he has never won a slam but now because his slam record is one of the most impressive in the world this year you turn to the fact that he hasn't won Masters titles so much this year (a year only half way through I may add). So much for those anti-Murray posters who call Masters Cup events Mickey Mouse Cups eh?

Murrays wins against top ten players (stats from ATP website)

2006 (4)

2007 (5)

2008 (12)

2009 (14)

2010 (6)

2011 (2) so far

Again looks like a normal distribution with the "peak" in 2008 and 2009.

CaledonianCraig

I don't want to hit anyone with a stick! Don't mind using a few figures to prove a point though. If you think Murray hasn't peaked. Maybe your right but these figures don't appear to indicate that you are...

Sorry hawkeye but it doesn't work like that. As Federer fans were often eager to point out in the past for Federer's poor results in Masters events all we heard was how he never cared for those tournaments now I'd say Murray is going down that path. Hence his slam record has improved recently to the detriment of Masters Cup so swings and roundabouts and it is better to perform at the slams than Masters events.

If you wish to believe he is having a bad year when he has just had his best ever clay court season, best ever grass court season and is one of only two players in the world (with Djokovic) to have reached the semis or better in all three slam events this year. No deterioration there for me or the majority of those going by the poll result so far.

Hawkeye if you focus solely on his grand slam achievements how does that fit in with your 2008-2009 peak theorem? I do believe that Andy Murray mentioned a change of focus towards the slams so I think it only fair you incorporate this into your analysis:

Slam Performance
Year win-loss win%
2008: 12–4 75%
2009: 15–4 79%
2010: 16–4 80%
2011: 16–3 84%

Caledonian Craig

I agree if you look at Murrays slam results in isolation. This year has been Murrays best so far. But unlike the "Federer fans" that you talk about I dont think results in slams tell the whole story particularly when they don't include a win. Murray got very lucky with the draw at the FO and benifited from Nadal retiring in his half of the draw in Australia. All credit to him for making the best of these opporunities. I do think he will continue to have chances at slams whether or not he is past his peak but he may need a little luck to help him.

He will also need to find a way to recover from losses such as the one at this years AO without it affecting his play for the next few months. I'm not sure if this is something that gets easier or more difficult with age.

Nore Staat

Murray fans will love your stats as they "prove" Murray is yet to peak. I still think mine show the bigger picture. We shall have to wait and see who is correct.

All any of the statistics show is how little can be predicted using statistics. Different sets of perfectly valid statistics show a very different picture.

It is all entirely irrelevant though. Would statistics have predicted Djokovics' amazing run before it happened?

carriege4

I think your in danger of "throwing the baby out with the bath water"...

Hawkeye

Not really, I just feel that they are of limited use when there are so many variables. For example you mention the "lucky" FO draw and Nadals AO retirement as mitigating against the slam stats but they also count against your wins against top ten players as well. If he has faced fewer top tens this year then he is very likely to have fewer wins. I am not saying this is a cast iron argument as I haven't looked at the stats but is an example of the fallability of statistical arguments for this sort of thing.

A friend of mine said a while ago that the statistical probability for anything is 50/50 - it will either happen or it won't. He may have a point!

I think the stats show he is focussing on the slams - he has plenty of money in the bank and he has proven to himself he can win at the "lesser" tournaments (apart from Clay - I don't think he has a senior ATP tournament on clay).

The stats also show disastrous fall-offs in performance if he is defeated in an Australian Open final indicating "mental" issues. Past performances indicate he is not quite ready to win a Slam - there is quite a step up in performance needed when facing a fully fit Nadal or Djokovic in a slam tournament, and I think we might have to put Del Potro in this bracket shortly. Federer might be fading now so I would give Murray more of a chance against him now.

There has been some comment that he missed a trick by not hiring a proper coach after sacking McLaggen last year after Wimbledon. He still needs to be more solid on serve, develop his forehand, have a more consistent attacking play and develop his mental focus.

hawkeye wrote:Caledonian Craig

I agree if you look at Murrays slam results in isolation. This year has been Murrays best so far. But unlike the "Federer fans" that you talk about I dont think results in slams tell the whole story particularly when they don't include a win. Murray got very lucky with the draw at the FO and benifited from Nadal retiring in his half of the draw in Australia. All credit to him for making the best of these opporunities. I do think he will continue to have chances at slams whether or not he is past his peak but he may need a little luck to help him.

He will also need to find a way to recover from losses such as the one at this years AO without it affecting his play for the next few months. I'm not sure if this is something that gets easier or more difficult with age.

And it has also been his best years so far on grass and clay undoubtedly so I rest my case. There is no point in trying to debate with someone who looks to two slam semis and tries to dilute that achievement by making excuses and I see how you choose to forget how he soldiered on in the French Open after injuring his ankle early on to reach the semis - an impressive feat on its own and your so-called easy draw is meaningless since Andy was one of the most on-form clay court players this season (two Masters semi pushing Nadal and Djokovic in those all the way). Hmm the old injury card in Australia eh? I really hate to burst your bubble mate but Nadal LOST to Ferrer and afterwards insisted his defeat had nothing to do with injury.

I find it amusing that 'peak' is defned by most posters as Slams won. This couldn't be further from the case.

Nadal fans that claim 'Injury' caused his defeat at the Australian Open, is the reason Federer fans mock his game. Nadal himself has never claimed that Ferrer's victory was down to his 'injury'

Murray is in his peak. That is the bottom line. Like I said on another thread, this year has been his best by a mile. The hardcourt season shall prove interesting.

legendkillar wrote:I find it amusing that 'peak' is defned by most posters as Slams won. This couldn't be further from the case.
.... this year has been his best by a mile. The hardcourt season shall prove interesting.

"This year has been his best by a mile" - I think this is only true in terms of Slam performance of which you find amusing.

Nore Staat wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I find it amusing that 'peak' is defned by most posters as Slams won. This couldn't be further from the case.
.... this year has been his best by a mile. The hardcourt season shall prove interesting.

"This year has been his best by a mile" - I think this is only true in terms of Slam performance of which you find amusing.

Not strictly true. After all on the clay courts it has certainly been his best year, as it has been on grass. Yes his form dipped (through bitter disappointment after Aussie Open) but has picked up dramatically since then on clay and grass and now we are about to go back onto the hard courts.

His form on clay has been unexpected and surprising particularly when playing Nadal and Djokovic while apparently injured. It was said that he was playing with a more attacking style and therein might lie part of the key for potential future success at the highest level.

Nore Staat wrote:His form on clay has been unexpected and surprising particularly when playing Nadal and Djokovic while apparently injured. It was said that he was playing with a more attacking style and therein might lie part of the key for potential future success at the highest level.

I don't recall Murray claiming injury against Djokovic.

Nore Staat wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I find it amusing that 'peak' is defned by most posters as Slams won. This couldn't be further from the case.
.... this year has been his best by a mile. The hardcourt season shall prove interesting.

"This year has been his best by a mile" - I think this is only true in terms of Slam performance of which you find amusing.

So the fact his Grass season has been his best equal to 2009 and that his Clay season has been the best, not including Slams or are we now going to discuss masters titles?

So if we take out his FO Semi, there is no difference in performances at Grand Slams from last year.

I find it more amusing your basing it on Grand Slams.

Murrays win loss record against top ten players http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=pa

2006 W(4) L(4) 50%

2007 W(5) L(5) 50%

2008 W(11) L(8) 57.9%

2009 W(14) L(6) 70%

2010 W(7) L(7) 50%

2011 W(2) L(5) 28.6% so far

Some have said that only slams matter. I disagree. Even if I agree that they are the most prestigious to win. In order to win them its usually necessary to beat players in the top ten and probably given the strength of the top three at least one of them (probably two!). Murray is ranked four. If he is lucky he can get to a slam semi without meeting anyone in the top ten. If he wants to get further it is likely he will have to beat a top player. Losing to them even outside of slams is not the best preparation. Only Federer at his very best could afford to be that sloppy.

Murrays record against top ten players in slams

2006 W(1) L(1) 50% Beat Roddick. Lost to Davydenko

2007 W(0) L(1) 0% Lost to Nadal

2008 W(2) L(2) 50% Beat Gasquet and Nadal. Lost to Nadal and Federer

2009 W(0) L(1) 0% Lost to Roddick

2010 W(2) L(2) 50% Beat Tsonga and Nadal (by retirement). Lost to Nadal and Federer

2006 W(1) L(3) 25% so far... Beat Ferrer. Lost to Nadal (twice) and Djokovic

hawkeye give up your on a loser.

By your own admission Andy has has his best year so far in slams and by fact Andy has also had his best clay court season of his career this year AND best grass court season of his career so far as well. Yet you say otherwise.

Just as well Andy is around and keeping GB on the tennis radar otherwise you guys would have to talk about Bogo or Wardie & Co's achievements

legendkillar wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I find it amusing that 'peak' is defned by most posters as Slams won. This couldn't be further from the case.
.... this year has been his best by a mile. The hardcourt season shall prove interesting.

"This year has been his best by a mile" - I think this is only true in terms of Slam performance of which you find amusing.

So the fact his Grass season has been his best equal to 2009 and that his Clay season has been the best, not including Slams or are we now going to discuss masters titles?

So if we take out his FO Semi, there is no difference in performances at Grand Slams from last year.

I find it more amusing your basing it on Grand Slams.

I'm not sure what you are arguing - Hawkeye has given the stats for non-slam tournaments. But if you are uninterested in Murrays Slam performances then fine - argue the toss with Hawkeye.

WHY does every one and their mother have a go at Andy?

He is GB's best hope in a long while and should be lauded!
Instead - what do we get? - ANDY IS SLAMLESS !!!!!!!!

So what! so was Rios but that didn't stop him getting to the
world #1 position. So is Wosniaki!

Where's the hoo-ha and outcry there

Fact:- Hawkeye admits Andy Murray has had his most impressive year of his career so far in slams.

Fact:- Andy Murray has had his best clay court season of his career so far.

Fact:- Andy Murray has had his best grass court season of his career so far.

True (barring Australian Open) his hard court for post-Aussie Open was poor but clearly he was unsettled so I don't think that can be considered as his true form.

No debate then Andy is still heading in the right direction and even the ranking suggest that as at the start of the season Andy was ranked No.5 but is now a clear No.4 closer to passing Federer (ranked No.3) than being passed by No.5 ranked player.

Nore Staat wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I find it amusing that 'peak' is defned by most posters as Slams won. This couldn't be further from the case.
.... this year has been his best by a mile. The hardcourt season shall prove interesting.

"This year has been his best by a mile" - I think this is only true in terms of Slam performance of which you find amusing.

So the fact his Grass season has been his best equal to 2009 and that his Clay season has been the best, not including Slams or are we now going to discuss masters titles?

So if we take out his FO Semi, there is no difference in performances at Grand Slams from last year.

I find it more amusing your basing it on Grand Slams.

I'm not sure what you are arguing - Hawkeye has given the stats for non-slam tournaments. But if you are uninterested in Murrays Slam performances then fine - argue the toss with Hawkeye.

I am not arguing anything. You picked up on my comment and tried to turn it into an arguement about a toss. I made a point based on what I have read, you then decided to imply I based my post on Slams and yet I have provided winning % on another thread.

If you don't want to argue, don't make daft comments.

Some Hope LK !!!

legendkillar wrote: If you don't want to argue, don't make daft comments.

I'm afraid the quality of your argument here is poor. You clearly have not understood what I said and have acted in a typical masculine manner to some fictitious slur you think I have made upon you.

Nore Staat wrote:

legendkillar wrote: If you don't want to argue, don't make daft comments.

I'm afraid the quality of your argument here is poor. You clearly have not understood what I said and have acted in a typical masculine manner to some fictitious slur you think I have made upon you.

The quality of my arguement is not poor. You made a poor attempt at sarcasm and assumption and balls'd it up.

legendkillar wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

legendkillar wrote: If you don't want to argue, don't make daft comments.

I'm afraid the quality of your argument here is poor. You clearly have not understood what I said and have acted in a typical masculine manner to some fictitious slur you think I have made upon you.

The quality of my arguement is not poor. You made a poor attempt at sarcasm and assumption and balls'd it up.

"Poor attempt at sarcasm", "daft comment" and "balls'd it up". You are a charmer.

Anyway I am satisfied that my comments on this thread are clear.

Nore Staat wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

legendkillar wrote: If you don't want to argue, don't make daft comments.

I'm afraid the quality of your argument here is poor. You clearly have not understood what I said and have acted in a typical masculine manner to some fictitious slur you think I have made upon you.

The quality of my arguement is not poor. You made a poor attempt at sarcasm and assumption and balls'd it up.

"Poor attempt at sarcasm", "daft comment" and "balls'd it up". You are a charmer.

Anyway I am satisfied that my comments on this thread are clear.

I am satisfied my comments were clear.

I am not here to charm people

If we are both satisfied I suppose that resolves the matter amicably. I'll toodle off now

carrieg4 wrote:Hawkeye

Not really, I just feel that they are of limited use when there are so many variables. For example you mention the "lucky" FO draw and Nadals AO retirement as mitigating against the slam stats but they also count against your wins against top ten players as well. If he has faced fewer top tens this year then he is very likely to have fewer wins. I am not saying this is a cast iron argument as I haven't looked at the stats but is an example of the fallability of statistical arguments for this sort of thing.

A friend of mine said a while ago that the statistical probability for anything is 50/50 - it will either happen or it won't. He may have a point!

I just wanted to point out that I attempted to answer your question about how Murrays wins against top ten players could be affected by the number of times he had to play such players. Thought a win/loss percentage might show things clearer.

Murrays win loss record against top ten players http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=pa

2006 W(4) L(4) 50%

2007 W(5) L(5) 50%

2008 W(11) L(8) 57.9%

2009 W(14) L(6) 70%

2010 W(7) L(7) 50%

2011 W(2) L(5) 28.6% so far

Some have said that only slams matter. I disagree. Even if I agree that they are the most prestigious to win. In order to win them its usually necessary to beat players in the top ten and probably given the strength of the top three at least one of them (probably two!). Murray is ranked four. If he is lucky he can get to a slam semi without meeting anyone in the top ten. If he wants to get further it is likely he will have to beat a top player. Losing to them even outside of slams is not the best preparation. Only Federer at his very best could afford to be that sloppy.

Also I've heard about that 50/50 probability theory. I quite like what it says about (even) my chances of beating Nadal but don't like what it says about my chances of being struck by lightning!

Nore Staat wrote:Hawkeye if you focus solely on his grand slam achievements how does that fit in with your 2008-2009 peak theorem? I do believe that Andy Murray mentioned a change of focus towards the slams so I think it only fair you incorporate this into your analysis:

Slam Performance
Year win-loss win%
2008: 12–4 75%
2009: 15–4 79%
2010: 16–4 80%
2011: 16–3 84%

In the heat of discussion you may have missed my attempt to add to your data for Murray focussing just on slams. Wanted to show how he performed against top ten players in slams

Murrays record against top ten players in slams

2006 W(1) L(1) 50% Beat Roddick. Lost to Davydenko

2007 W(0) L(1) 0% Lost to Nadal

2008 W(2) L(2) 50% Beat Gasquet and Nadal. Lost to Nadal and Federer

2009 W(0) L(1) 0% Lost to Roddick

2010 W(2) L(2) 50% Beat Tsonga and Nadal (by retirement). Lost to Nadal and Federer

2006 W(1) L(3) 25% so far... Beat Ferrer. Lost to Nadal (twice) and Djokovic

Okay Hawkeye - your stats seem about right (minor typo: change 2006 to 2011) and I have nothing further to add - my thoughts are summarised in my comment made at 12:02 am today (17th July) above. Although I might disagree a little with your diagnosis the stats you present seem fair within context. I appreciate the fact you took the time and effort to present evidence in support of your statements.

I fail to see why you are even bothering to argue though hawkeye. You yourself have already agreed that Andy has had his best slam year so far this year - fact. We all agree Andy has had his best clay and grass court seasons to date this year so that clearly points to Andy still improving which is what this is all about is it not?