Where Murray takes it from here [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Where Murray takes it from here

Fed=ATPTourkilla
01-31-2010, 01:40 PM
Positives:

1 He is a really good player now and his game is maturing well. He's doing a good job of finding the right balance between attack and defence.

2 Federer respects him and knows he has to bring his best to beat him. This was a completely different (and better) Federer from the one who lost to Del Potro. It might have been because Federer had very little recovery time before the Delpo match but I suspect it was also because Federer respects Murray more than he does Delpo.

3 I think that speech and the emotion showed the world that he's basically a good guy, although a lot of people had found him quite irritating in the past.

Points to improve on:

I really don't think there's much wrong with Murray's game at all - it's just a question of executing on the day. However, I'll focus on three points:

1 He still doesn't look 100% comfortable putting balls away. When Federer or Nadal have a short ball on their forehand, they kill it every time. Clean and efficient. Federer looked he could put away those forehands with a blindfold on. With Murray it looked like a bit of a struggle at times.

2 Second serve needs to improve. This is definitely possible - he's a very tall and powerful guy.

3 Last but not least, STOP CLUTCHING YOUR BACK/THIGH/ARM IN THAT PATHETIC WAY. I don't believe there was anything wrong with him at all. It's just a pathetic display of mental weakness, showing to the world (and the opponent) that he doesn't fancy his chances of winning the match. Most players left this sort of thing behind when they moved on from juniors. Even if you are injured (and I don't believe Murray was) you shouldn't let your opponent know. And when there's a much older guy on the other side of the net from you looking fresh as a daisy, such behaviour is completely embarrassing.

Andi-M
01-31-2010, 02:06 PM
Suprisingly I pretty much agree with everything you said there. :D

munZe konZa
01-31-2010, 02:06 PM
his game has no aggression , Nadal was the same when he came but he learned to be aggressive when he needs to be. Murray is just a cookie cutter player with a good all around game but against a focused oppoenent he can't fight back

Sunset of Age
01-31-2010, 02:09 PM
Suprisingly I pretty much agree with everything you said there. :D

+1.
And I agree with Federer as well - 'too good a player to not win a GS'. It's merely a matter of time imho. :)

Allez
01-31-2010, 02:09 PM
Murray needs to take it to the next level

scoobs
01-31-2010, 02:10 PM
He picks himself up, dusts himself off and keeps trying to put himself into the position to play another slam final and try to win it.

The second serve is showing signs of improvement. He does play more aggressively more often these days but I agree he still doesn't always put the ball away as effectively as I would like to see.

I hope one day it goes his way.

brithater
01-31-2010, 02:26 PM
He has the game. Its time to do some soul searching. Its all in his head now. How bad do you want a slam? Do you want it bad enough to go out and take what you want. Its that simple. I believe Andy will be fine. All players mature at different rates and games like Andys take longer sometimes. Sometimes they can mature early but only when those players have the heart of a warrior. Andy is not a warrior. Andy is more like a chess player that is always wanting to extend the chess match. He will learn. His game has progessed fine in the physical sense. Now he just needs to fix the mental issues and stay healthy. Then you will see him maximizes his potential and the success role in. Its all heart and mind right now for Andy.

opeth84
01-31-2010, 02:32 PM
I think he needs to keep playing at a similar level to what he produced for the most part of the last 2 weeks. But if he's to win a slam i think he either gets lucky with who he plays or he plays lights out like he did against Rafa in the quarters. He was very hesitant at times against Fed.

iriraz
01-31-2010, 02:42 PM
To win a slam he has to start playing agressive tennis mixing it up with serve and volley.
Obviously against weaker players like his matches in the first week he can play his normal game and he will get the win.But the way he played the final is he hoped to be gifted the title rather then him trying to earn it.Too many times when he got the advantage in the rally instead of going for a winner or coming to the net he decided to keep the rally going and allow Federer to gain the upper hand.

Sean
01-31-2010, 02:42 PM
He needs to loosen up thats all, he is a teetotal mummys boy. From here he needs to go out with his team get insanely pissed and get off with some hot Aussie totty. He can start looking at his game sometime next week.

Jōris
01-31-2010, 02:43 PM
He should grow a beard, a beard would look good on him. His hair should be scruffy, short doesn't suit him.

Federer=God
01-31-2010, 02:47 PM
His second serve was either better today or Fed just didn't really attack it. Not sure which.

Agree with his other weaknesses. He only rips the forehand powerfully enough for a winner on a really short ball or one where he can get a lot of angle. Also thought he was tactically weak after Fed's slice or even topspin backhand was proving difficult to compromise.

Persimmon
01-31-2010, 03:06 PM
His next real chance is at the USO.

chalkdust
01-31-2010, 03:23 PM
Agree mostly with op except point 3, the clutching at the back etc. He said his lycra shorts were a bit tight.:eek: He has had stiffness in his back all week but has consistently said it is just uncomfortable more then anything and not really affecting his play.

No, I think the main thing is Andy has shown good progress and maybe just needs to play consistently more aggressive tennis even when he doesn't need to so that he is in the groove when the big matches come along. Maybe if he could close out matches more quickly, there would be less of a physical toll, although obviously things worked out pretty well for him in Australia anyway, probably because of the type of players he faced (except Cilic who was just tired). Forehand looked better today, I thought, but more work needed obviously. First serve percentage/consistency and second serve are other obvious areas.

In his interview, Fed said he played some of his best ever tennis and who am I to disagree so things aren't all bad.

SetSampras
01-31-2010, 03:33 PM
fed played well but Murray forgot how to be aggressive and went back to his passive defensive ways when the pressure got put on. Murray gives Fed the opportunity to just go for broke and do whatever he wants. Thats why Murray isnt #1 and is slamless. Nadal would NEVER allow this happen. Fed received a big time gift since RG last year. A BIG TIME GIFT!! Bottom line

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:41 PM
I disagree.
Murray played very bad today. He was off. If he had the level that he showed early in his tournament, he would have won.

The question that Murray should ask to himself is the following: Why can't I play my game in a grand slam final? Why did I choke the 3rd set when I had easy balls?

If Murray does not resolve his mental issues, he will never be ready for the big stage against Federer.

thrust
01-31-2010, 04:01 PM
Del Potro beat Federer because he did not panic when he was nearly blown off the court in the first set and a half at the USO. Against Roger, besides Nadal at his best, the other top players choke against Roger especially if they lose the first set in a Slam final.

manuel84
01-31-2010, 04:02 PM
He's still NOT ready to win a slam.

I feel he should have gone for more in the first two sets although, of course, there was no denying Fed's brilliant footwork and timing. The third set, Murr really should have closed out that one. That FH to the net in the TB showed he still has to do more work on his mental toughness.

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 04:05 PM
Del Potro beat Federer because he did not panic when he was nearly blown off the court in the first set and a half at the USO. Against Roger, besides Nadal at his best, the other top players choke against Roger especially if they lose the first set in a Slam final.

He wasn't blown off the court at all, Fed was average all match but did enough to lead 6-3 5-4.

Del Potro's nerves played a part.

rocketassist
01-31-2010, 04:06 PM
His next real chance is at the USO.

Wimbledon, after Fed.

Djokovic and Del Potro are not grass contenders, and Roddick is the only other guy to beat.

manuel84
01-31-2010, 04:12 PM
Del Potro beat Federer because he did not panic when he was nearly blown off the court in the first set and a half at the USO. Against Roger, besides Nadal at his best, the other top players choke against Roger especially if they lose the first set in a Slam final.

Delpo won bec. Fed kept giving him chances. In the 3rd set tiebreak today vs. Murr, you could see his determiation to end the match right there and then.

JediFed
01-31-2010, 04:13 PM
Dunno, I'd say RG.

It will be an enormous gap if Rafa is not there for the clay. He's dominated it 5 years running. 3 months of the calendar are suddenly wide, wide, open.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
01-31-2010, 05:32 PM
Not RG. He sucks on clay. Federer seems to go through the specialist Spanish/ S American moonballers quite easily but Murray can't handle them.

Nr 1 Fan
01-31-2010, 05:37 PM
He needs to learn to raise his game on the important points against players like Federer. He had 5 setpoints and didn't take his chances. Think it's mainly a mental thing.

MrChopin
01-31-2010, 05:40 PM
The question that Murray should ask to himself is the following: Why can't I play my game in a grand slam final?

One possible answer is that he's playing Federer. It certainly hasn't been Nadal standing in his way at either final.

Logical
01-31-2010, 05:42 PM
Straight to the circus in the outskirts of London.

jasmin
01-31-2010, 06:10 PM
No gift was given to Fed playing someone who has the lead head to head over you. Murray needs to get stronger mentally (stop with showing someone you may be injured or sick). This goes for Djokovic too although I think he was really sick this time. Also he needs to be more aggressive and not wait for the other to make the mistakes.

Deejay
01-31-2010, 06:21 PM
Murray is progessing nicely but unfortunately he's playing in the era of the best player ever who is an absolute slam monster. Ultimatley though it's his lack of punch on the forehand side that lets him down. When the rally is being played on the backhand he's argubly the best there is, but his constant lack of depth and pace on his forehand makes him vulnerable against the heavy hitters in the game. Even when Murray does put pace on the forehand you can see by his technique that it's just not a natural looking shot.

That's why he'll never be a threat at the FO as he just can't generate consistant pace off that wing to stay on top in the rally on a slow high bouncing surface. You only need to look at his match vs Gonzo last year when he was being dragged off court in every forehand rally. The same happened today, not enough weight on the forehand and Federer just eats it up.

Still though I expect him to solidify his place as the world number 2 this year ahead of Nadal and now that he's trying to be a bit more aggressive I think he'll have an even better year than last. But as long as Federer is around it's going to be very difficult for him to win a slam but that goes for everyone else.

prafull
01-31-2010, 06:52 PM
Murray is done. Will drop out of top 10 by the end of the year.

Murray's Mint
02-01-2010, 12:12 AM
Murray has had two slam finals against someone who now has 16 slams. He's been tight in both and hence hasn't really done himself justice. If he can keep reaching finals though by the law of averages it will happen, if nothing else becauses he'll eventually come up against someone tighter than him. My worry with him is that the really big hitters like Cilic and Del Pot will get consistent enough to blow him away on hard courts. I wouldn't be suprised thouh if he makes a couple of Wimbledon finals in the nexy few years. Tou never know, if Rafa has already knocked out Rog in an early round he might have a good chance.

SaFed2005
02-01-2010, 12:22 AM
fed played well but Murray forgot how to be aggressive and went back to his passive defensive ways when the pressure got put on. Murray gives Fed the opportunity to just go for broke and do whatever he wants. Thats why Murray isnt #1 and is slamless. Nadal would NEVER allow this happen. Fed received a big time gift since RG last year. A BIG TIME GIFT!! Bottom line

Wow just wow... your comments are getting old. Everything you post is basically one form or another of you saying:
"Blah blah blah... Yeah, players of this generation are just so damn generous, huh? They just keep handing the guy one grandslam after another. What a sad state for tennis. Sampras on the other hand fought and earned every single one of his slams. blah blah blah some more." :rolleyes: :o
:haha:

Roddickominator
02-01-2010, 12:38 AM
Murray is playing like Roddick. Obviously Murray has better defence and a worse serve....but their mindset is similar.

His passive, pushing game will beat all the weak players early in Slams...but when he needs to step it up against an opponent that can actually keep the ball in play or hit winners, he starts to struggle. I think Tsonga, Davydenko, a healthy Cilic or Del Potro, and several other aggressive players that could get hot would all have beaten Murray at this Slam(and future Slams) if Murray continues to play this passive game.

Murray has to hit his first serves at a higher percentage, improve his 2nd serve, and get comfortable with playing aggressively on big points. In Slams, a guy like Federer will take it from you if you push the ball around the court all day.

tennisphilia
02-01-2010, 02:22 AM
He'll improve in the clay court season but not contend for the French Open title.
He has a chance at Wimbledon and the US Open.

-Valhalla-
02-01-2010, 03:55 AM
The first thing Andy must do is to quit being so stubborn about his game and realize that he'll NEVER defensively counterpunch his way to a GS victory. Another big problem is that his camp/entourage are more like buddies just kissing his ass and collecting a paycheck instead of real coaches and taskmasters. The kid's only 22 but he runs his own show. What he needs is a strong father-figure type in his camp to drive and discipline him.

As per regards his tactics last nite, they were a complete joke and he had no "Plan-B" when he realized he wasn't going to get any freebies off Fed's backhand. The poor kid went straight into full panic mode and didn't change his tactics [where was the backhand down the line?] until it was too late [down two sets].

Another painful learning experience but hopefully he'll up the aggression levels next time.

Schu
02-01-2010, 04:20 AM
I am by no means a Murray fan but give the guy a chance. He's 22 and has lost 2 finals to a player who broke the GS winning record and actually did play very well today. He's got the game when he decides not to be passive. Maybe its a mental thing but what player doesn't get a bit freaked out in their first or second GS final against the mighty Fed in good form. I suspect he'll get over his passive addiction and win several slams (gag gag).

Action Jackson
02-01-2010, 04:23 AM
He will be on a flight to London.

BigJohn
02-01-2010, 04:41 AM
He'll be fine. Roger told him after the match:

You're too good of a player to never win a Grand Slam so don't worry about it.

So no need to worry. This guy knows what he's talking about.

Clydey
02-01-2010, 07:34 AM
Murray is playing like Roddick. Obviously Murray has better defence and a worse serve....but their mindset is similar.

His passive, pushing game will beat all the weak players early in Slams...but when he needs to step it up against an opponent that can actually keep the ball in play or hit winners, he starts to struggle. I think Tsonga, Davydenko, a healthy Cilic or Del Potro, and several other aggressive players that could get hot would all have beaten Murray at this Slam(and future Slams) if Murray continues to play this passive game.

Murray has to hit his first serves at a higher percentage, improve his 2nd serve, and get comfortable with playing aggressively on big points. In Slams, a guy like Federer will take it from you if you push the ball around the court all day.

Another example of short memory. Murray was in great form and has been playing aggressive where appropriate. It's funny how easily people forget that simply because he lost today. He has a winning record against all of the players you mentioned. So no, I doubt they would have beaten him on the form he was in.

Si_yi
02-01-2010, 07:46 AM
Positives:
I suspect it was also because Federer respects Murray more than he does Delpo.

:bs:
respecting is not gradable and federer respects every player.
and isn't it obvious that Federer LIKES jmdp more?

Roddickominator
02-01-2010, 08:04 AM
Another example of short memory. Murray was in great form and has been playing aggressive where appropriate. It's funny how easily people forget that simply because he lost today. He has a winning record against all of the players you mentioned. So no, I doubt they would have beaten him on the form he was in.

Murray was in great form defensively all week...sure. Offensively....while slightly more aggressive than usual, he was still lacking. He played good against Nadal...so where was ANY of that against Federer? He didn't even try it until the 3rd set....far too late.

Like I said, Murray's counterpunching game alone is enough to take down the vast majority of players. So don't be surprised when he goes up against an in-form aggressive player....they blow him off the court. It isn't like this was the first time it has happened....it's exactly what happens pretty much every time he loses.

He wouldn't have beaten Federer yesterday either way....but he definitely could have made it a competitive match instead of laying down in straight sets.

HarryMan
02-01-2010, 08:13 AM
Murray was in great form defensively all week...sure. Offensively....while slightly more aggressive than usual, he was still lacking. He played good against Nadal...so where was ANY of that against Federer? He didn't even try it until the 3rd set....far too late.

Like I said, Murray's counterpunching game alone is enough to take down the vast majority of players. So don't be surprised when he goes up against an in-form aggressive player....they blow him off the court. It isn't like this was the first time it has happened....it's exactly what happens pretty much every time he loses.

He wouldn't have beaten Federer yesterday either way....but he definitely could have made it a competitive match instead of laying down in straight sets.

Murray in his press conference said he finds it very difficult to play Federer agressively because of the pace and variety in Fed's shots. Nadal's topspin balls sit up well enough for him to be more agressive.

MariaV
02-01-2010, 08:14 AM
He'll be fine. Roger told him after the match:


So no need to worry. This guy knows what he's talking about.

This guy also said last summer that Roddick will win Wimbledon one day. :D :D :D :shrug:

Mechlan
02-01-2010, 08:21 AM
Murray was in great form defensively all week...sure. Offensively....while slightly more aggressive than usual, he was still lacking. He played good against Nadal...so where was ANY of that against Federer? He didn't even try it until the 3rd set....far too late.

Like I said, Murray's counterpunching game alone is enough to take down the vast majority of players. So don't be surprised when he goes up against an in-form aggressive player....they blow him off the court. It isn't like this was the first time it has happened....it's exactly what happens pretty much every time he loses.

He wouldn't have beaten Federer yesterday either way....but he definitely could have made it a competitive match instead of laying down in straight sets.

Thing is, Murray has beaten Federer several times before by pounding the backhand and waiting for the errors. And Federer has been below par in the previous few GS finals (the AO was Federer's first good final since, ironically, the '08 USO). So why would Murray's gameplan have been to be very aggressive coming into this match? Mid-match, he realized that Federer was on song and then changed tactics. But as you pointed out, he had already let slip chances in the first set and Federer played a blinder of a second set. But then, I daresay with the conditions being so heavy and Federer playing so well, it would have taken an exceptionally special performance by Murray to get the job done, which didn't happen.

The bigger point about Murray needing to be aggressive in the future or risk losing to in-form aggressive players is a good one. Hopefully this match will make him realize that he needs to improve that part of his game so that he has the ability to take the match out of the hands of aggressive players playing well. It's a lesson he definitely needs to learn.

Clydey
02-01-2010, 08:23 AM
Murray was in great form defensively all week...sure. Offensively....while slightly more aggressive than usual, he was still lacking. He played good against Nadal...so where was ANY of that against Federer? He didn't even try it until the 3rd set....far too late.

Like I said, Murray's counterpunching game alone is enough to take down the vast majority of players. So don't be surprised when he goes up against an in-form aggressive player....they blow him off the court. It isn't like this was the first time it has happened....it's exactly what happens pretty much every time he loses.

He wouldn't have beaten Federer yesterday either way....but he definitely could have made it a competitive match instead of laying down in straight sets.

Murray had a winners/UEs differential of +89.

Federer had a winners/UEs differential of +64.

If that's not efficient, controlled aggression from Murray, I don't know what is. No one even came close to matching his winners/UEs differential.

Sophocles
02-01-2010, 11:18 AM
Murray in his press conference said he finds it very difficult to play Federer agressively because of the pace and variety in Fed's shots. Nadal's topspin balls sit up well enough for him to be more agressive.

And he's not the first player to discover this. Davydenko & Soderling spring to mind.

Sunset of Age
02-01-2010, 11:43 AM
Murray will be fine, just like Fed said. The guy is merely 22 years of age, and now folks are bashing him because of losing his second appearance in a GS final? :rolleyes:
He just had the bad luck of bumping into Jesus!Fed yesterday, but there will surely be better chances for him on the way in the next six years or so.

This guy also said last summer that Roddick will win Wimbledon one day. :D :D :D :shrug:

Well maybe he will. Roddick hasn't retired as of yet, as far as I know. Anything can still happen. ;)

BigJohn
02-01-2010, 11:47 AM
This guy also said last summer that Roddick will win Wimbledon one day. :D :D :D :shrug:

No offense to anybody, but I'd go with Roger's informed opinion over anyone's from these forums. Just saying.

MariaV
02-01-2010, 11:51 AM
Well maybe he will. Roddick hasn't retired as of yet, as far as I know. Anything can still happen. ;)

I didn't say otherwise. And yes miracles can happen. :D :D :D ;)

Sunset of Age
02-01-2010, 11:54 AM
I didn't say otherwise. And yes miracles can happen. :D :D :D

:p - well there have been very strange things happening in the history of tennis. Roddick was d*mn close last year. Who knows?

Well in all, people are just too harsh to anyone who loses a 'big match' over here on MTF. And it surely isn't a disgrace to lose to Fed-on-Fire. :)

MatchFederer
02-01-2010, 11:58 AM
Murray had a winners/UEs differential of +89.

Federer had a winners/UEs differential of +64.

If that's not efficient, controlled aggression from Murray, I don't know what is. No one even came close to matching his winners/UEs differential.

It's good, though the stats don't tell everything. For example, one could be more aggressive and win 10% more points through forcing more forced errors and yet have a worse differential of say + 64 ;). Of course, this could be in the grand scheme of tennis more efficient and more successful.

I think Murray is still finding his absolutely ideal balance. He is getting better all the time and it's great to see.

Dini
02-01-2010, 02:19 PM
Keep working on the forehand.

I saw some amazing flat forehand winners from him. :eek:

rocketassist
02-01-2010, 02:23 PM
Murray showed a nice balance the whole tournament. I couldn't believe people said he wasn't being aggressive enough yesterday. He tried, but Federer's aggression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murray's aggression and he did choke on some points when he went for it.