Will Murray Overcome Murray

Having watched the Murray/Nalbandian match kinda reminded me of his Berrer/Nadal/Djokovic/Troicki encounters on the clay. He goes from being in the match from a control perspective and then the opponent ups the anti and then it really does become a dogfight in the last set. I know he lost to Djokovic and Nadal on those occasions, but he won against Berrer and Troicki when the only option was to attack. Yesterday he got 51% of first serves in compared to Nalbandian who made 64%. The first set Murray was in cruise control. He won 6-1. Nalbandian looked like her had lost heart. Even complained about the sunlight. Murray played a passive 2nd, Nalbandian found his form and into the 3rd set looked as if he was going to put Murray to the sword. Murray increased his aggression and was rewarded for it when he ran out in 3 sets.

Whilst it was good to see Murray attack, I can't help but now think about his mental approach. Is it a case of poor tactics or is it Murray being slightly lazy? Lendl in his day was a bit of hard ass on himself and extremely disciplined, and yes Murray can be very disciplined, but based on yesterday I kinda get the feeling that when he is half way there in a match he takes his foot off the gas and loses focus far too easily. Almost like he feels the hard work has already been done. I know we talk about the big four, but I feel with the other 3 once they get to 1 set up in a BO3 or 2 up in a BO5 they either maintain the same level or even stick their foot on the pedal and go to 5th gear. With Murray I feel he get's 3rd gear, goes back to 2nd gear and then goes straight into 5th which can either be a smooth journey in the fast lane or a mistimed carwreck. For so many years it has been fore told that Murray will achieve great things, but after yesterday I can't help but now think that there is laziness in his make-up that prevents him making a smooth finish to the match. Nalbandian looked gone after the first set. For Murray should've been thinking about tying that match up in 2 and gradually increasing the aggression and spreading it out over the set.

I don't know. I don't want to seem extremely harsh, but I can't help but think that yesterday could've and should've been much more easier than it really was. Yes he won, but how much of that match was down to Murray just digging himself a hole and allowing Nalbandian to come flooding back into the match. I don't want Murray fans to jump on this being another one of those critical threads, I just want to see and hear if they think that Murray does have a weakness that stretches beyond a tennis coach to be able to correct.

Excellent post. However, I wouldn't call it laziness but more like a mental relaxation once he has built a lead that leads to a more passive game and at times that proves fatal. That is the conundrum that is Andy Murray and it holds him back handicapping him. This is just another little nuance that separates him from Djokovic, Federer and Nadal - not raw talent but mental lapses and flaws.

Agree CC. Passive can be fatal to even the lower ranked players. I think it is partially laziness because I would imagine past coaches have said to Andy look you go from being in control of things to handing all the incentive and momentum to your opponent. I think it must be a creature of habit thing which as much as he wants to change, he can't in some ways.

Good post. Whether it is laziness or mental relaxation it is very frustrating to see it happen. I agree that you rarely see this with the top three. This trait and the lack of a consistently good service game are the two major things I was hoping that Lendl would be able to help him address. As yet I am not seeing that. Still always hoping.

Matters of the mind though are rarely solved by coaches though. The conundrum that Andy needs to solve are these mental lapses that not only affects his game but boosts his opponents. It may be that he features in a match that it suddenly clicks into place and solves the problem or it may never be solved. Who knows? But you see here we talk of his flaws so what does that say about the rest of his achievements in the sport with flaws. Impressive. Some people though will continue to dig at him never having won a slam etc without having the ability to step back and recognise the great talent he has.

It is frustrating. In that 3rd set he was flattening that BH beautifully and he did overpower Nalbandian eventually. His defence in that 3rd set was granite at some stages. Nalbandian does deserve some credit as he managed to summon the game together to take it to 3. 44 UE's didn't help the cause, but he had to play some ridiculous shots to win points.

I would just like Murray to have a tournament where he can show the same consistency throughout. He was won tournaments granted, but I think he can win a lot more clinically.

There have been frustrations with many of Murray's matches over the years, true, but I also feel it's difficult to make an assessment without giving credit (like lk) where due to the opponent.

When you're up against such a talented and experienced campaigner as Nalbandian you know that any lapse - whether mental or otherwise - can spell danger, despite your best efforts to avoid such lapses in the first place. The best laid plans and all that ........

Nalby gave a big scare to Rafa not too long ago at Indian Wells.

Sure, Murray might have finished the job in better style by consolidating after his very clean first set but ultimately he weathered the storm when others with less grit might have crumbled.

I do think it's a little harsh to call this "laziness".

My take is that Murray reverts to his default, trained, instinctive way of playing a point and inevitably there are points in the match where this is entirely the wrong way to go. He's not alone in this - many players do the same.

We've all seen Murray livid with himself because he's played a point the wrong way - he knows what he needs to do to win but finds himself unable to override his training and instincts and gets angry and frustrated on court as a result. He does this less visibly now but the effect is probably the same - a bit of a dip while he steadies the ship.

What I'd take heart from is that when the occasion warranted it he played more aggressively and what's more he beat Nalbandian (no mean feat) and got through.

Hopefully Lendl can give him insight into what to improve this year and he'll do well at the remaining slams.

All in all thought it was a fantastic match to watch and a shame there had to be a loser.

I call it laziness because it seems a reluctance to change given that he has made other changes without such issues. If Lendl said to Andy look you need to get out of the state of mind that relaxes your play on court into a more passive way and Andy says he can't then it negates Lendl's role entirely.

Yeah I get what you're saying but it's clearly an involuntary reaction and adjusting something this subtle can take a long time to accomplish. You can't just rewire the way you react to situations at the drop of a hat, much as you'd like to!

I agree with Reckoner here. Andy was brought up as a counter-puncher and it is just a habit he kind of can't get out of. We all have those habits, that can be bad for us that we can't get out of and that has nothing to do with laziness but all in the mind. Passiveness results in Andy as he tries to play points in a manner where he can bring out his counter-punching game but more often than not his opponent can and does deliver the knockout blow first in a rally. As was tapped into on commentary yesterday in that when he is faced with a big crisis and back to the wall he invariably can switch on a much more potent gameplan but sometimes by that time the match is lost.

CC!

Part of the key to success is knowing you limitations. If Andy has a refusal to adjust and when I say refusal both willing and unwilling then the high ambitions he has will be just that, ambitions. Look at the changes Djokovic made and he is percieved as a creature of habit. Nadal made changes and it is widely acknowledged about his OCD. You look at the changes to the serve in 2010 and when he reverted back in 2011 the differences were there to see. Change is about embracing that change. Yes Andy is a counter puncher, but clearly that is not yielding to high success he craves eg. that Slam.

Without question he is a success as he has the titles to prove that, I think he needs possibly a hypnotist or something that can get him in the 'zone' and keep him there for 2 weeks at a time.

I must admit I am open to him seeking a Sports Psychiatrist. I would see that as a positive step. I think it is not as whacky as some public perception of it is.

For his serve, I would recommend a gentle word in the ear of Sampras

Sorry to be pedantic but you probably mean a sports psychologist rather than psychiatrist, they are often confused but do very different things!

I think we are seeing small changes in Murray's play already - it may not take fruit quickly but hopefully we'll see the results in due course.

I just wish he hadn't gone on that bikram yoga bulking up path and had learned to play full on aggressive stuff - it would have been so great to see!

But the point is that somethings we all do things that we don't want to but it happens by course of habit. Yes perhaps a sports psychologist may help but who knows? As you touch on the big three don't have these flaws and is what sets them above the rest and that may always be the case for Andy. Only time will tell but it is certainly nothing to be ashamed of to have achieved whatxhe has with all his flaws in an era containing Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Hate to be pedantic but there are Psychiatrists and Pschologists. Ronnie O' Sullivan had the primary.

Murray in the 3rd set yesterday played so precise. He even slowed the serve down so he was getting it in play. The focus was immense too. Got broken, got the break back and just picked him off at the end.

When he plays aggressive it is brilliant to watch. I think he needs to rid of gimmick support like from that Muppet David Haye and get someone in that can keep him in the zone.

And let's not forget that Murray is the only guy - other than the top 3 of course - who has been winning Masters titles in the past 12 months, so he's clearly getting a lot of things right .......

Well CC Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have all shown tremendous consistency throughout their careers. I think Andy can reach that level. We have seen it so many times before in the past where he gets himself in to that winning position and seems to implode in some way. Take the Australian Open this year. A win over Djokovic in that semi I think would've elevated him massively.

I am looking past whether tennis coaching is going to be key for Andy to get amongst the Slam prizes. I think the scars of past defeats play a role in the physque. I think a fresh approach might help get that balance. He says all the right things like he can improve, but I think physically he is as good as he can ever be. Maybe some mind techniques and exploration into what distractions he has on court.

I am all for camp Murray. Maybe it needs one more body

legendkillarV2 wrote:Hate to be pedantic but there are Psychiatrists and Pschologists. Ronnie O' Sullivan had the primary.

Murray in the 3rd set yesterday played so precise. He even slowed the serve down so he was getting it in play. The focus was immense too. Got broken, got the break back and just picked him off at the end.

When he plays aggressive it is brilliant to watch. I think he needs to rid of gimmick support like from that Muppet David Haye and get someone in that can keep him in the zone.

Yeah but Ronnie just sees a psychiatrist right not a sports psychiatrist? If there's such a thing it's the first I've heard of it.

So are you suggesting Murray sees a shrink then? It might help if he got a good one - these days most psychiatrists seem to just dole out medication.

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Hate to be pedantic but there are Psychiatrists and Pschologists. Ronnie O' Sullivan had the primary.

Murray in the 3rd set yesterday played so precise. He even slowed the serve down so he was getting it in play. The focus was immense too. Got broken, got the break back and just picked him off at the end.

When he plays aggressive it is brilliant to watch. I think he needs to rid of gimmick support like from that Muppet David Haye and get someone in that can keep him in the zone.

Yeah but Ronnie just sees a psychiatrist right not a sports psychiatrist? If there's such a thing it's the first I've heard of it.

So are you suggesting Murray sees a shrink then? It might help if he got a good one - these days most psychiatrists seem to just dole out medication.

It was a sports one. Sir Chris Hoy and that Pendleton lass used him too.

Psychatrists tend to avoid handing out meds. They are advocates of mind tools. I see one monthly due to my Schizophrenia.

I think Andy would benefit from seeing one because I think they would help in the training of the mind.

I didn't know that lkv2 - it's a hard illness to deal with and I wish you all the best in doing so.

An ex of mine is bipolar and all her psych seemed to do was hand out pills. It didn't work out between us and funnily it still cuts me up to think of her many moons later.

Thanks reckoner. It is a pain if I miss meds and stuff. I am sorry to hear an ex of yours had bipolar. Mental illness's are like an itch you just can't scratch. That's what I found when I was diagnosed.

There was one tool that one of my psychiatrists mentioned a term which I thought was brilliant and may well affect many professional athletes.

It was called the 'Beach Ball effect' by where you have a clear mind and then something from nowhere comes into your mind and completely de-rails and disrupts your train of thought. He felt the best way of dealing with it was to think of that thought and then as easily as it crept into your mind just float away. It was pretty fascinating.

Thanks for your kind comments lk.

It sounds like it might be a useful technique for Murray... let's see what 2012 holds for him.

Hippo legs seems too shy to show his attacking game!

In all honesty Nalbandian is shocking player at times, even Murray's choking wasn't helping the argie!

legendkillarV2 wrote:I see one monthly due to my Schizophrenia.

Will we be hearing from v1 later?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Hippo legs seems too shy to show his attacking game!

In all honesty Nalbandian is shocking player at times, even Murray's choking wasn't helping the argie!

Please stop lowering the tone of an otherwise sensible and decent discussion. Thanks.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I see one monthly due to my Schizophrenia.

Will we be hearing from v1 later?

CC might remember this. Former Rangers goalkeeper Andy Goram was diagnosed with Schizophrenia and the fans used to chant 'There's only 2 Andy Gorams'

It does make me laugh when you can make light of bad situations

I remember it.

As for the original post's point about whether Murray will overcome Murray you could argue it is more about trying to keep a lid on the container where his passiveness lurks. It could and has been solved in the past when his first serve is very potent as that brings out the aggression more. When his serve falters is the time that everything else is put to the test and the passive side comes out.

I only saw the last half hour of the Nalbandian match, so I've not seen the passive second set that Murray played. However, I must reiterate that in my opinion the subject of Murray's progression as a player needs to be separated with Murray's progression as a clay court player

Nowadays Murray is much more likely to disappear into his comfort zone of risk free tennis on a clay court. To me, he is only comfortable with a more aggressive approach when he moves well. He doesn't move well enough to do it consistently on clay.

Murray will be judged on one thing from now on, can he take it to the 3 above him in the slam semis and finals? How he fares on a clay court against Nalbandian is kind of irrelevant. Yes, it would be great if he played the way that will beat the top 3 all the time, but it's unrealistic. Especially on clay.

I have little expectation of Murray in Rome or RG to be honest. If he gets quarters in both it'd be good, semis would be a fantastic result in either. But he has won masters, he has taken it to the big guys in these tournaments. Not until we reach the latter stages of the next slam he has a chance of winning (Wimbledon) will we know if his aggressive approach against Novak in Melbourne was the turning of a corner or a one off.

Anything that happens before then is irrelevant. He's not going to win Rome or RG, and may never win a clay title. His priorities are elsewhere, and it's elsewhere he will be defined.

Aint this the same Murray who killed Federer for will in 2008 [ i guess 4 wins in a row].

The problem for Murray is adopting passive style of game, its better he starts losing some matches by adopting aggressive play or the results gonna be like this where he wears his opponents down and they give up.

Lets make it clear, Murray will not change his style, its simply not possible, he does have some attacking strokes [USO 2008 semi against Nadal was an example] but he doesn't have an attacking game.

Murray should some taste some GS success soon to believe himself for greater glories if not if not we have to understand he is one of those good players who had variety but never best in any style.

Nadal excellent in defensive stye, Federer excellent in attacking style, both are born with it, Djoko is a mix of both in say 75% of both styles, so when he plays he beats most. Murray on the other hand is good at defense as well as attack but not best at any of the style, so if one of the top 3 play their style to the core he often left clueless.

Do Murray have it in him to win a GS? Yes.
But Can he win a GS? only time can say.

"the backhand drop shot was the put-away of choice between these two lifetime members of the Good Hands Club and fellow all-time non-Slam-winners."

http://blogs.tennis.com/racquet_reaction/2012/05/rome-murray-d-nalbandian.html

Both Murray and Nadal step into the court to fight. They tend to make molehill into a mountain. It is their nature. Ferrer comes to run. Dolgopolov comes for fun. Federer comes to win. It is difficult to change. Murray's successes against top three have become less and less frequent. He appears to be losing his race with time.

Some erroneous clutches there Eskay. How can you say Murray comes on court to fight yet we have a general concensus of opinion that feels he goes too passive and needs more aggression? As for Federer coming on court to win- is that apart from when he loses as an ex-member here pointed out recently how Fed tanked a match when he lost whilst bogbrush himself feels Fed will be in no mood for a battle with Djokovic in Rome. As for you feeling he is losing his race against time well he is five tears the junior of Federer who is still going strong and six years younger tganIvanisevic when he won his first slam so do think your getting a little over-excited writing Andy's obituary yet.

I think it's too soon to be typing Andy's obituary. For that realistically to happen requires a massive purple patch from 3-4 players in the top 20 and a massive dip in form from Andy. If anything that looks extremely unlikely.

Andy requires a fresh mental perspective. For me away from the court and one to one and Andy may be more open about his failings without the pressure of his team around him.

A G.S victory looked nearer for Murray when he was on the ascendance, defeating Federer more often than not in non-G.S events. He appeared to be Nadal’s obstacle on the hard courts in the semis. Many talked of him as the main contender at A.O 2010. Picture today is not as rosy. There are positives in that he reached all the four semis last year and at A.O this year. With Nadal peaking in 2010, Djokovic in 2011, it was thought that Andy might be the hottest player in 2012. There is no evidence so far, though three majors are yet to be played. It is not a question of writing his obituary, infact there is no thought or attempt. There is a sincere wish that he does, but G.S title appears farther than nearer.

Something not adding up there though Eskay. The years you talk of when he was 'in the ascendency ' I beg to differ. Sure he had wins over Federer but he was prone to early slam exits so hardly in the ascendency. Today he is far more consistent in the slams and this yearhas beaten Djokovic soundly in Dubai so his wins against the big guns haven't exactly dried up.

I agree with Eskay to an extent. There's no doubt that Murray has improved since the time that he was 'in the ascendancy' as described by Eskay, and whilst it may be us projecting our hopes on him, I feel that his 'improvement' curve has flattened to a sort of 3 steps forward 2 steps back progression. He's way more consistent in the big events and he is a consistent winner of TMS, but sadly thus far his consistency includes consistently failing to make that final step in a slam. During 2007-early 2010 I used to think very confidently with Murray that it was a question not of 'if' but of 'when'. I still think he'll get a slam, but that he'll do so by flopping exhausted over the threshold of the door he's been hammering on for so long when the draw falls right for him and my confidence is retreating a bit. If he does get one slam, I think he'll get a few, but its the one that I am less confident about than I used to be.

Eskay wrote:A G.S victory looked nearer for Murray when he was on the ascendance, defeating Federer more often than not in non-G.S events. He appeared to be Nadal’s obstacle on the hard courts in the semis. Many talked of him as the main contender at A.O 2010. Picture today is not as rosy. There are positives in that he reached all the four semis last year and at A.O this year. With Nadal peaking in 2010, Djokovic in 2011, it was thought that Andy might be the hottest player in 2012. There is no evidence so far, though three majors are yet to be played. It is not a question of writing his obituary, infact there is no thought or attempt. There is a sincere wish that he does, but G.S title appears farther than nearer.

In fairness I don't think any player has been hot in 2012. Djokovic fans and Nadal fans will still say there player is yet to hit top gear. What is also strange is that Federer's results thus far have not been given the highlight had it been someone else and I think that is due to his accomplishments to date. When people will now think Roger is a main contender for a Slam this year I get the impression it is met which much sceptisism.

I think a kind draw is what Murray would require and that is not saying that he is looking to duck the big 3, but more a case a kinder draw that opens up will give him the best chance given his Slam record against the big 3.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
In fairness I don't think any player has been hot in 2012. Djokovic fans and Nadal fans will still say there player is yet to hit top gear.

Not so sure, I think that they have decided after the USO final to pace themselves far more carefully than in the past. They were both hot for the Aus Open, Djoko slightly more so. Djoko was hot in Miami, the second most important tournament of the year thus far, Nadal was hot at his beloved MC and Barcelona but not as hot as he usually is at IW. They are both moving now from simmer to boil and I expect (as a Fed fan I fear) that they are going to go fully through the gears again and will be hot enough between now and July to share the biggest spoils.

Am pretty much with with barrystar on this.

When Djoker had his spectacular run in 2011 - and not least the sequence of one victory after another over Nadal - some observers saw this as a sign of the start of a serious long-term decline for Nadal. I wasn't one of them.

There's no doubt that Djoker has given Nadal a lot more to think about than he had in 2010, and he's now faced with a much stiffer challenge than he was expecting at this stage of his career, and on all surfaces. But the fact remains that it was Nadal who was still getting to all those Finals (even though he lost them all) and that's why I expect these two will once again be the ones battling it out for the biggest prizes over the rest of the year.....

To put it another way, in 2011 it was Djoko, and nobody else, who got between Nadal and a year that would have been just as good as 2010 was, or even a "Rafa Slam" between RG '11 and Aus Open '12.

They were both hot for the Aus Open, Djoko slightly more so.

I don't think they were. They both started the tournament well, but floundered towards the back end of it. The final was an ugly slugfest.

Djokovic was pretty solid in Miami and Nadal was solid in MC. For me however I don't think they are anywhere nbear there best and I think being nearly halfway through the season I don't expect them to come to the boil at the FO. The problem they will face is that they will run out of tournaments to get some real momentum going that will enable a mini dominance through the season.

I still think it is a relatively open field.

I beg to differ re the Aus Open - Nadal beat Fed and Djoko beat a very good Murray and they all but nullified each other in the final. It was an ugly spectacle because of what they did to each other - nobody else was able to live with them.

I'd like to think you are right because I want Fed and Murray to have a share of the spoils - how hot do you think Fed has been this season? He wasn't hot enough for Nadal at the Australian Open.

Well he's been very hot, barrystar.

4 titles and 29-3 W/L tells us as much. Best ratio of the Top Four, I seem to think

But ..... despite such a strong performance in week-to-week tour events (inc. Masters), my own view is that Federer at the Slams will find himself in a similar position to Murray : good enough to go deep, but quite likely falling just short at the SF's or (or, possibly, even Final).

The inescapable difference between the two of course is that Federer's career is far more into its twilight period than is Murray's ; and so when Fed does now compete at the Slams he does so in the supreme comfort of knowing that he has 16 nice trophies safely tucked away in his bank vault from his prime years ; for Andy, the stakes - and hence pressure - are very different .......

barry

I think Roger has been on top form. I think it is clear that the work with Annacone is starting to pay off. His BH is a lot more consistent and the net play is perfect.

I think more importantly what Federer will enjoy is being under the radar. It's strange because instead of the press considering Roger's climb up the rankings as a triumph, it is seen more as a decline in Nadal and even Djokovic.

I think the FO is very open. I don't think it is a gimmie by any stretches that Nadal or Djokovic are expected winners. Djokovic is looking woeful and Nadal was out of sorts in Madrid. I think Federer has he best chance of the FO since 2009.

I've got my fingers crossed. I'm a natural pessimist. I agree Fed has been great this year, at a slam I just don't know. I do think he needs all the help a draw and a beneficial ranking can give him.

legendkiller : I can definitely see the logic of what you say but I personally attach (relatively) little importance to any negative assessments of Rafa's play in the run-up to the French.

However indifferent form his form may (or may not) be ahead of RG, he seems to have a special reserve tank that always becomes available once his campaign there begins.

Last year was perhaps the clearest example : almost dumped out in R1 and still not very impressive even in later rounds BUT still enough to win it once again, matching Borg of course. And all my money's on him this year too.

I actually think LAST year was Fed's best chance since '09, but he has yet more miles on the clock now and I'm convinced that 7 grinding rounds over Bo5 is just too much to ask .......

(But I wouldn't say that to his face).

lags,

I didn't think it was Federer's best chance last year. I think there was optimism given that he had a greater chance of beating Djokovic than Nadal. As luck would have it Djokovic was drawn on Federer's side which made inevitable he was going to meet Nadal if he got to the final. Djokovic was the strong favourite and many (one) believes that Fognini robbed him.

I think Federer has it what takes to win at the French. I think the only obstacle with Nadal would be grinded into playing the slow tempo. I am hoping however the organisers get the same pace into the courts as last year.

Fair points lk.

I guess what I meant was that, having made it to the Final, Fed got himself off to a racing start and with momentum could well have carried on in similar vein had he managed to grab the first set with that (just wide) drop-shot.

I thought about chastising you for tediously dragging up the infamous 'Fognini Factor' !!

But - if truth be told - I find the whole notion so funny that it always bring a big smile to my face whenever it gets a mention. Long may it live in the annals of tennis history...