next »

[Clydey]

You are correct of course, I have no secret insight into Andy Murray thinking but I like many others, have read a fair number of articles and listened to the thoughts of commentators and other players on this subject, including those with some insight into why Andy and Brad Gilbert did not work out. I feel his game has not really changed over the last year, even though ‘everybody’ seems to feel he needs to be more aggressive and take his chance to hit winners when it comes.

'Eveybody' seems to feel that way because he has been beaten twice by the greatest player to ever pick up a racquet. Has it never occurred to anyone that Federer is simply a better player when he's at his best? If it wasn't for Federer, Andy would likely be a two-time major winner.

I am a big fan of Andy’s and think he is a great talent but don’t get me wrong, I am the first to admit, I no expert in tennis but I have watched all his slams and most of his APT matches in the last three years and feel I have a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses in his game. I feel his game has some glaring weaknesses which need addressed and I don’t see that happening, what I do see is one big hitter (lacking his talent) after another blasting him off the court in most of the slams over this period.

You'll have to be more specific when it comes to these 'big hitters'. It's a huge misconception that he routinely gets hit off the court by them. People conveniently forget all of his wins over these players and remember the losses. Run through the list of big hitters who have beaten Andy and I'll tell you why most of them were not bad losses. Also, his losses at the French shouldn't even matter. He just isn't good enough on that surface. He loses to big hitters and grinders alike.

The present ‘counter punching’ game can’t cope with these players, when they having one of these days, when they are making their shots (ok when they are missing them, they beat themselves). Andy and Miles must know this, so why no change?

There has been change. He's a more aggressive player than he used to be. Anyone can see that. However, he is never going to be the type of player who rips every forehand. Look at his stroke production on the forehand. It just doesn't lend itself to that style of play.

He has also improved his second serve. It's faster and has more direction. That's why he won the highest percentage of points behind the second serve at Wimbledon.

[asimov]

'Eveybody' seems to feel that way because he has been beaten twice by the greatest player to ever pick up a racquet. Has it never occurred to anyone that Federer is simply a better player when he's at his best? If it wasn't for Federer, Andy would likely be a two-time major winner.

You'll have to be more specific when it comes to these 'big hitters'. It's a huge misconception that he routinely gets hit off the court by them. People conveniently forget all of his wins over these players and remember the losses. Run through the list of big hitters who have beaten Andy and I'll tell you why most of them were not bad losses. Also, his losses at the French shouldn't even matter. He just isn't good enough on that surface. He loses to big hitters and grinders alike.

There has been change. He's a more aggressive player than he used to be. Anyone can see that. However, he is never going to be the type of player who rips every forehand. Look at his stroke production on the forehand. It just doesn't lend itself to that style of play.

He has also improved his second serve. It's faster and has more direction. That's why he won the highest percentage of points behind the second serve at Wimbledon.

To me the flowing players are big hitters, who attempt to batter their opponent off the court, none of them are as good players as Andy but he has fallen victim to them as follows:

USA

2009    4th Round    Maran Cilic (Cro)

Australian

2009   4th Round    Fernando Verdasco (ESP)

French

2009    Q-Final                     Fernando Gonzalez (CHI)
2010    4th Round    Tomas Berdych (CZE

Wimbledon

2009    S-Final    Andy Roddick (USA)

He has also been defeated by Nadal (Wimbledon) and Federer twice (USA and Australia). I agree no disgrace in losing to either of these two.

So; 5 exits in the last two years from the Slams to big hitters, that’s why I feels he needs to develop his game further perhaps by;
work on putting some pace on his forehand,
improve first serve % and just improve that second serve,
use more serve and volley,
cut back on the ‘counter punching’ by pushing up off the base line more often,
try to use the width and depth of the court, stop hitting balls into the centre of court, where opponents can’t believe their luck.
Andy has a lot going for his present style of game and it may even be enough to win a Slam but there again it may not be. If he can improve on his game it will certainly make that elusive Slam more likely.

[angry1]

To me the flowing players are big hitters, who attempt to batter their opponent off the court, none of them are as good players as Andy but he has fallen victim to them as follows:

USA

2009    4th Round    Maran Cilic (Cro)

Australian

2009   4th Round    Fernando Verdasco (ESP)

French

2009    Q-Final                     Fernando Gonzalez (CHI)
2010    4th Round    Tomas Berdych (CZE

Wimbledon

2009    S-Final    Andy Roddick (USA)

He has also been defeated by Nadal (Wimbledon) and Federer twice (USA and Australia). I agree no disgrace in losing to either of these two.

So; 5 exits in the last two years from the Slams to big hitters, that’s why I feels he needs to develop his game further perhaps by;
work on putting some pace on his forehand,
improve first serve % and just improve that second serve,
use more serve and volley,
cut back on the ‘counter punching’ by pushing up off the base line more often,
try to use the width and depth of the court, stop hitting balls into the centre of court, where opponents can’t believe their luck.
Andy has a lot going for his present style of game and it may even be enough to win a Slam but there again it may not be. If he can improve on his game it will certainly make that elusive Slam more likely.

On clay those 2 are better and more promising than him.Roddick isn't a big hitter merely a big server and he was ill vs Verdasco.

Roddick won many important points by scraping Andy's 1st serve back and letting Andy flounder attacking off no pace with depth,and won a close match by holding his nerve in tie breaks.

I really think there's a lot less of a simplistic pattern than you and most journalists perceive in his slam defeats.

[Clydey]

Sorry for seeming to restate and mangle Clydey's arguments twice.

Both times I was doing something else and wandered off before finishing my post and forget to look to see if any posts had appeared meantime.   

You're forgiven.

[Clydey]

James, can you find Nick Bolitieri's article where he assessed that Andy's team has made a concerted effort for Andy to play more agressively at Wimbledon.  I know that it is somewhere here in MW and in the independent newspaper but I just can't find it (Argh).

I have no idea where it is, mate. Sorry about that.

[asimov]

I am sorry guys but some of you will just not accept that Andy has not won a slam because without a large slice of luck, at the moment his 'counter punching' game is not good enough. The fact he doesn't have  a forehand like Ferderer, Rafa or a dozen others is infact an indication that he has work to do not that he can never have a big forehand.

[angry1]

I am sorry guys but some of you will just not accept that Andy has not won a slam because without a large slice of luck, at the moment his 'counter punching' game is not good enough. The fact he doesn't have  a forehand like Ferderer, Rafa or a dozen others is infact an indication that he has work to do not that he can never have a big forehand.

Accept implies your opinion is fact and other people and I are being obstructive.I'm not and I don't think they are.

I can see you sincerely disagree,but I feel Andy's achievements and notable wins are sufficient evidence for me to believe he can win a slam without either large amounts of luck or a fundamental change in approach.

Very few players win slams undeservedly and very few top 10 ranked teenagers or 4 time MS winners haven't won a slam.Andriy Medvedev is the only one among the first I can find doing the latter among only 2 overall.

I certainly don't think an elite forehand will be a part of any slam win he may have.

[sueann]

I think it's not easy to change something that you're so use too e.g. counter punching. Honestly, that's what made him to become World No. 4. You can't just change something immediately and expect it to happen. It does take time and experience.