What is Andy Murray's game!? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What is Andy Murray's game!?

Fumus
03-15-2007, 01:43 PM
The guy serves like 30% on the regular, commits more unforced errors than winners usually and still wins matches. It seems like he's always lofting, and slicing. Then sometimes he's uber aggressive...watching him sometimes is truly puzzling.

LoRd's of MTF, help me out...what is Andy Murray's game? (Sides winning ugly...lol, sorry couldn't help it)

Byrd
03-15-2007, 01:50 PM
Counterpunching, winning ugly, making other players get frustrated and making more errors, you get the drift.

vamosnadal
03-15-2007, 01:59 PM
That's the whole point! He aims to be puzzling and to confuse his opponents by using variety and the great thing about him is he has the talent to do such a large variety of things. That's why he stands out. He can mix up the spins and slice he uses, mix up the pace of his ball, stay back, come forward, play great defence, play aggressively and by doing all of this he can confuse and move his opponent around, helped by his clever shots and placement. He just generally stops his opponent getting any rhythm.

His serve can be dodgy, but he can still get through his matches quite easily because he is a great mover and so can get back in points after his serve and if that doesn't work, because his return games are so good.

I have never really been a big fan of Murray and he'll never be my favourite player because the moody outbursts put me right off, but the more I watch him, the more I respect just how much talent and variety he has.

Xristos
03-15-2007, 02:00 PM
I dunno WTF his game is but it (and himself) are ugly as sin.

Byrd
03-15-2007, 02:01 PM
Nightmare for powerful players as well, as he gives them no pace, so them having to generate more power=errors + even more frustration.

Langers
03-15-2007, 02:06 PM
I call him Nicorette.

Patches of brilliance, followed by patches of medicrity.

He's a gun though.

Sunset of Age
03-15-2007, 02:08 PM
I dunno WTF his game is but it (and himself) are ugly as sin.

:lol:

Puschkin
03-15-2007, 02:10 PM
overhyped. :p :wavey:

Gulliver
03-15-2007, 02:11 PM
It's different from most other players and they will take time to work it out. Nearly always the same when young players show up.

Langers
03-15-2007, 02:11 PM
overhyped. :p :wavey:
Coming from a Gasquet fan? :eek: ;)

Puschkin
03-15-2007, 02:13 PM
Coming from a Gasquet fan? :eek: ;)

Exactly, if you had just seen their last two matches.

I do recognise the differnce between a victory and a defeat, though.

guille&tati4life
03-15-2007, 02:17 PM
It's similar to Anna Chakvetadze in WTA in that he seems to win matches by making his opponent play badly.
He's a great defender and makes his opponent hit shots when the ball has a lot of spin on it. He mixes up play very well. Few players can play as many types of shot as Murray can.

Langers
03-15-2007, 02:22 PM
It's similar to Anna Chakvetadze in WTA in that he seems to win matches by making his opponent play badly.
He's a great defender and makes his opponent hit shots when the ball has a lot of spin on it. He mixes up play very well. Few players can play as many types of shot as Murray can.
Speaking of Anna, I don’t know how she is winning so often. What’s so good about her game other than the angle she gets and her defensive ability? I guess when half the tour consists of players with no brains it’s a big weapon. ;)

Anyway Murray has the best return of serve on tour, that helps.

el_croata
03-15-2007, 02:22 PM
so called pusher
very hard to beat

Apemant
03-15-2007, 02:26 PM
The guy serves like 30% on the regular, commits more unforced errors than winners usually and still wins matches. It seems like he's always lofting, and slicing. Then sometimes he's uber aggressive...watching him sometimes is truly puzzling.

Yeah... and I like puzzles. :devil:

He does all sorts of wild things and varies them in endless combinations. And how does he win? By breaking more than he himself gets broken, even when he gets less than 40% of 1st serves in :cool:

Action Jackson
03-15-2007, 02:27 PM
Clever, but to compare him at all to Mecir is a disgrace.

Puschkin
03-15-2007, 02:29 PM
...but to compare him at all to Mecir is a disgrace.

George, for once, :worship:

zicofirol
03-15-2007, 02:30 PM
so called pusher
very hard to beat

he is not a pusher, he has the ability to hit the ball when he wants to, he can hit hard and get good angles, he plays sort of lazy, imo...
He has the best all around game from the young guns...

tangerine_dream
03-15-2007, 02:30 PM
LoRd's of MTF, help me out...what is Andy Murray's game?
Subterfuge.

Pigpen Stinks
03-15-2007, 02:31 PM
I'd compare him to a Mecir from 20 years ago. Tremendous at using his opponent's pace, glides around the court very efficiently, and plays very differently than most of the current crop, so yes, it is difficult for them to figure him out.

Having said that, I don't think he's one of these guys that bursts into the top 20, or even top 10, then a year or so later players "figure him out", and he's lucky to stay in the top 30. The guy can flat out play tennis. I'd expect to see him near the top for years to come.

Pigpen Stinks
03-15-2007, 02:31 PM
Clever, but to compare him at all to Mecir is a disgrace.

Well, I just did. ;)

Dougie
03-15-2007, 02:32 PM
Counterpunching, winning ugly, making other players get frustrated and making more errors, you get the drift.

And who would be better than Brad Gilbert to teach him all that!!

scoobs
03-15-2007, 02:35 PM
If experienced tennis-watchers have difficulty articulating and quantifying his game, and understand quite how he is so effective when he seems to *do* very little, imagine how his opponents also feel - it goes some way to explain why his opponents also struggle with him. They can't put his game into a nice easy category which then informs their tactics against it, so they struggle to find the right way to attack it.

Action Jackson
03-15-2007, 02:40 PM
Well, I just did. ;)

It's a poor call, if he achieves half as much as Mecir, then he will have done well.

Merton
03-15-2007, 02:42 PM
Two words: Mixing and anticipation. Mixing refers to using a lot of variety in pace, direction and spin. Anticipation refers to the return of serve and the ability to think beforehand where his opponent's next ball will be going.

Jaap
03-15-2007, 02:42 PM
overhyped. :p :wavey:

You should know what overhyped is being a fan of the most overhyped player around at the moment. :lol:

Fumus
03-15-2007, 02:45 PM
It's a poor call, if he achieves half as much as Mecir, then he will have done well.

Not a fan ay, GWH?

Merton
03-15-2007, 02:46 PM
Clever, but to compare him at all to Mecir is a disgrace.

I first heard Brad Gilbert make the comparison, and that was around the time of the 2005 US Open, long before they started working together. I don't see style similarities, the big cat stroke production and movement was completely unique. As for career achievements, Murray may win a slam(s), then again he may not.

Fumus
03-15-2007, 02:47 PM
I first heard Brad Gilbert make the comparison, and that was around the time of the 2005 US Open, long before they started working together. I don't see style similarities, the big cat stroke production and movement was completely unique. As for career achievements, Murray may win a slam(s), then again he may not.

I think Murray should play more aggressive. I like what Agassi said about him "...he's alittle too much cheese, sometimes"

Merton
03-15-2007, 02:51 PM
I think Murray should play more aggressive. I like what Agassi said about him "...he's alittle too much cheese, sometimes"

It is a relative thing, he clearly enjoys counter-attacking so he should play the style he feels more comfortable with. On the other hand, he was aggressive against Nadal for example, when he absolutely needed to be.

Action Jackson
03-15-2007, 02:51 PM
Not a fan ay, GWH?

Actually I don't mind Murray, just hate how the British press are overhyping him to the max.

Unlike most of the young players today, he has this thing called point construction and has a sound tactical mind. He has excellent anticipation and on court nous, something that can't be taught.

But honestly he is no Mecir or close to it.

Apemant
03-15-2007, 02:54 PM
It's a poor call, if he achieves half as much as Mecir, then he will have done well.

So you mean one GS final, one TMS and like 4-5 MM tourneys? :devil:

Because that would be about half as much as Mecir.

Action Jackson
03-15-2007, 02:54 PM
I first heard Brad Gilbert make the comparison, and that was around the time of the 2005 US Open, long before they started working together. I don't see style similarities, the big cat stroke production and movement was completely unique. As for career achievements, Murray may win a slam(s), then again he may not.

BG with his usual hyperbole and he also said he was like Wayne Ferreira. Well he doesn't have Ferreira's fitness or his forehand, but he is a bit more stable. Murray isn't even really like Kucera let alone Mecir.

I am not sure whether he will win a Slam or not, but if he does, they will be talking about 100 years from now, just like they do when England won the football World Cup in 66.

scoobs
03-15-2007, 02:54 PM
I think he should play sparingly more aggressively - sometimes he misses great chances to end points earlier than he would otherwise do by being a little too cautious. But he must remain true to the core of his game with is to defend, counterpunch and outwit rather than go for all-out offensive.

I thought one guy who showed a good way to get at Andy was, surprisingly, Ljubicic. When they played the Doha final he played an almost absurdly patient match and mostly left it to Murray to try and finish the points, Andy couldn't do it consistently enough and Ljubicic ran out the 64 64 winner. I couldn't help but admire how Ljubicic turned the tables on Andy that day.

Fumus
03-15-2007, 02:56 PM
Actually I don't mind Murray, just hate how the British press are overhyping him to the max.

Unlike most of the young players today, he has this thing called point construction and has a sound tactical mind. He has excellent anticipation and on court nous, something that can't be taught.

But honestly he is no Mecir or close to it.

GWH, it's the British press man. They are notorious for such things. As far as Murray goes, he just puzzles me. If he can beat alot of these players outright, I mean, just on being aggressive and owning them, why all the passive aggressive tactics, why all the drop shots, moon balls and lobs. I mean, in tennis why play on the defensive if you don't have to?

Action Jackson
03-15-2007, 03:01 PM
GWH, it's the British press man. They are notorious for such things. As far as Murray goes, he just puzzles me. If he can beat alot of these players outright, I mean, just on being aggressive and owning them, why all the passive aggressive tactics, why all the drop shots, moon balls and lobs. I mean, in tennis why play on the defensive if you don't have to?

Merton and scoobs have explained it clearly enough. Every player has a basic base to their game and everything else comes from that base.

Well Murray did spend an important part of his development in Spain on the clay and he isn't going to play the high, heavy topspin game, so he adapts to survive and the way he plays suits him. Example why would be ball bash with Davydenko, when throwing these change ups gets the PMK out of rhythm and he can handle the pace of shot mostly.

Not everyone has to be a brainless ball basher.

stroszek
03-15-2007, 03:03 PM
Roddick quotes about Murray:
"Andy makes you beat him,"
"He handles pace well,"
"He can hit passing shots from any position. He is great at playing defence from tough positions, he moves well and even when he is on the run he is able to create something."
"He can go for the ball big and he plays great defence. He is a very, very good player."

Murray is a naturally gifted sort of player, great hands, that allows him to do all sorts of things with the ball, and that combined with a good tactical brain makes him tough to beat. The serve is a problem though, he beat Davydenko with a very low 1st serve %, he won't be lucky every time. A consistant first serve is the technical weapon he needs most, if he wants to win a GS.

Fumus
03-15-2007, 03:13 PM
Merton and scoobs have explained it clearly enough. Every player has a basic base to their game and everything else comes from that base.

Well Murray did spend an important part of his development in Spain on the clay and he isn't going to play the high, heavy topspin game, so he adapts to survive and the way he plays suits him. Example why would be ball bash with Davydenko, when throwing these change ups gets the PMK out of rhythm and he can handle the pace of shot mostly.

Not everyone has to be a brainless ball basher.

I'm not talking about being a BBB, I just think why work so hard when you can just outright beat someone, I mean he gets himself in trouble a lot with his game. It's so inconsistent sometimes, why not play more aggressive against the weaker guys. That's how he can lose to someone like Clement and then beat someone like Federer.

Action Jackson
03-15-2007, 03:18 PM
I'm not talking about being a BBB, I just think why work so hard when you can just outright beat someone, I mean he gets himself in trouble a lot with his game. It's so inconsistent sometimes, why not play more aggressive against the weaker guys. That's how he can lose to someone like Clement and then beat someone like Federer.

Murray likes to play the big guys and struggle against players he should beat, if he turns out like this, then it's not surprising. Ever thought it's not in his nature to be aggressive all the time?

He isn't going out power players generally, he has to outwit them and get them out of their comfort zone, which he has done well so far. His progess is good enough at the moment.

It's not that hard to see what Murray does well on court.

stroszek
03-15-2007, 03:26 PM
To be fair, Murray is on a 15 match winning streak against players ranked outside the top 32, although in a few of those matches he's had to scrap hard, but he's improving in that department. He's only lost to top tenners this year, lets see if he can keep that going a little longer this year.

my0118
03-15-2007, 03:28 PM
I like the style he plays, really irritating to see his teeth and his childish attitude on the court though.

Fumus
03-15-2007, 03:44 PM
Murray likes to play the big guys and struggle against players he should beat, if he turns out like this, then it's not surprising. Ever thought it's not in his nature to be aggressive all the time?

He isn't going out power players generally, he has to outwit them and get them out of their comfort zone, which he has done well so far. His progess is good enough at the moment.

It's not that hard to see what Murray does well on court.

Often the changes made to a players game for them to progress and move up the rankings are things that don't come naturally. Andre Agassi once said "You can make small modifications to your game depending on who you are playing but, when you start to play a game different from your own you become ordinary really quickly". I guess Murray might become ordinary if he played a bit more aggressive, I guess off-pace/changing the pace is his pace.
I suppose if he improves his serve, and cuts down on errors, he will progress no matter what. My take on his situation is that sometimes, he could put an opponent or a rally to bed but he doesn't execute. Sometimes he should pull the trigger faster.

Action Jackson
03-15-2007, 03:54 PM
Often the changes made to a players game for them to progress and move up the rankings are things that don't come naturally. Andre Agassi once said "You can make small modifications to your game depending on who you are playing but, when you start to play a game different from your own you become ordinary really quickly". I guess Murray might become ordinary if he played a bit more aggressive, I guess off-pace/changing the pace is his pace.
I suppose if he improves his serve, and cuts down on errors, he will progress no matter what. My take on his situation is that sometimes, he could put an opponent or a rally to bed but he doesn't execute. Sometimes he should pull the trigger faster.

Change for the sake of change is just as stupid as not doing anything. Agassi is a fine one to talk about variety. He was very gifted at what he did, but he was the guy who was too stubborn to change his game when he was losing, cause he backed himself to win anyway and more often than not he was right.

Murray has the basis of his game and his variety is his strength, so why would be move away from that, just to hit the balll a bit harder to please you.

Shrinking Violet
03-15-2007, 03:57 PM
He's working to become more aggressive though. He's trying to serve/volley more and he's trying to use a bit more power off the ground but I guess when things get tough he does slip back into his comfort zone a little which is natural. The thing with him is that he has a lot of ways to beat a guy - he can change his gameplan half-way through a match if it's not working and he knows how to get under guys skin. The only thing I think he really needs to work on is the mental side - I think he's been prone in the past, not so much recently in fairness, but prone to following up a really good match with a bad one. He gets criticised for not always playing well but he wasn't always capable of winning when he wasn't playing well last year and that's something he's added to his game. It's all about getting the wins on the board. He's probably got too many options in his game at the moment and he's still working out how to put them all together regularly.

Action Jackson
03-15-2007, 03:59 PM
Murray definitely needs to improve the serve and the fitness and it's about being aggressive at the right time.

Shrinking Violet
03-15-2007, 04:06 PM
The serve is a nightmare. How he is managing to win matches against good players with a first serve percentage like that is staggering. When the first serve goes in it's a good shot, unfortunately it seems to hardy ever go in. I don't know what he's serving at for the year, but I would be absolutely shocked if he's serving over 60% for the year.

rofe
03-15-2007, 04:28 PM
Just to reiterate what others have said - this is how I see his game:

Variety - he can slice and dice, moon ball and he can flatten out his backhand (he can flatten out his forehand too but he is not comfortable doing that). He can stay back and he can take the ball on the rise. In general he has the ability to change the pace of the ball and work the angles.

Anticipation - a really good asset is his return of serve. He has natural court sense so it feels sometimes that he is being lazy around the court.

Point construction - He is quite good at working the point though he sometimes gets caught up in keeping the rally going even when he has an opening to finish it off with a winner.

Serve - He can serve big (though his placement could improve) but his serve percentage is abysmal.

Just my opinion but with his talent, he should have developed a one-handed backhand. ;)

Fed-Express
03-15-2007, 04:29 PM
I dunno WTF his game is but it (and himself) are ugly as sin.
And this from you:confused:

my0118
03-15-2007, 04:35 PM
Just to reiterate what others have said - this is how I see his game:

Variety - he can slice and dice, moon ball and he can flatten out his backhand (he can flatten out his forehand too but he is not comfortable doing that). He can stay back and he can take the ball on the rise. In general he has the ability to change the pace of the ball and work the angles.

Anticipation - a really good asset is his return of serve. He has natural court sense so it feels sometimes that he is being lazy around the court.

Point construction - He is quite good at working the point though he sometimes gets caught up in keeping the rally going even when he has an opening to finish it off with a winner.

Serve - He can serve big (though his placement could improve) but his serve percentage is abysmal.

Just my opinion but with his talent, he should have developed a one-handed backhand. ;)

I think this is the key why he has many big wins against top players even though his first serve percentage is just :retard:

FluffyYellowBall
03-15-2007, 04:35 PM
i was trying to figure that out yesterday and i couldnt say anything. Slicing to construct a point till he gets a short ball was common and sometimes hed be more aggressive...A bit of everything rlly which is sometimes smart but not always

GlennMirnyi
03-15-2007, 04:44 PM
Q: What is Andy Murray's game?
A: A joke.

el_croata
03-15-2007, 04:47 PM
Q: What is Andy Murray's game?
A: A joke.



AGREE

Hendu
03-15-2007, 04:59 PM
Q: What is Andy Murray's game?
A: A joke.

You are just unable to appreciate finesse tennis.

GlennMirnyi
03-15-2007, 05:05 PM
You are just unable to appreciate finesse tennis.

When you're being sarcastic, please use the :rolleyes: smilie.

Hendu
03-15-2007, 05:07 PM
When you're being sarcastic, please use the :rolleyes: smilie.

what makes you think I am being sarcastic?

I'm very serious here. Thats why you don't like Nalbandian either.

GlennMirnyi
03-15-2007, 05:12 PM
what makes you think I am being sarcastic?

I'm very serious here. Thats why you don't like Nalbandian either.

You can only be sarcastic about this. I'm a S&Vtard, of course I love finesse tennis.

I don't like Nalbandian because he's overrated. Can't serve, too.

Andy Murray's game is the epitome of anti-finesse. Ugly strokes, bad serve, can't hit a winner with the forehand to save his life.

bigbhoy
03-15-2007, 05:15 PM
Q: What is Andy Murray's game?
A: A joke.

Says the 'AC' who 'appreciates' Beasty Boy Mirnyi!

:haha: :haha: :yawn:

adee-gee
03-15-2007, 05:17 PM
Q: What is Andy Murray's game?
A: A joke.
:wavey:

Beforehand
03-15-2007, 05:20 PM
The guy serves like 30% on the regular, commits more unforced errors than winners usually and still wins matches. It seems like he's always lofting, and slicing. Then sometimes he's uber aggressive...watching him sometimes is truly puzzling.

LoRd's of MTF, help me out...what is Andy Murray's game? (Sides winning ugly...lol, sorry couldn't help it)
I don't feel so bad about being the only one who doesn't get it now.

Time to go read the thread.

Hendu
03-15-2007, 05:21 PM
You can only be sarcastic about this. I'm a S&Vtard, of course I love finesse tennis.

I don't like Nalbandian because he's overrated. Can't serve, too.

Andy Murray's game is the epitome of anti-finesse. Ugly strokes, bad serve, can't hit a winner with the forehand to save his life.

Being able to take control of the pace of the game / hitting clean shots / creating great angles / hitting drop shots, lobs and passing shots at will / having good touch and mastering all the spins, I think makes you a finesse player.

Murray and Nalbandian have that in common, along with the returning skills.

GlennMirnyi
03-15-2007, 05:23 PM
Says the 'AC' who 'appreciates' Beasty Boy Mirnyi!

:haha: :haha: :yawn:

Haven't you been arrested for racism yet?

The day Murray learns to volley you can come and talk about whatever :bs: you always do.

:wavey:

Ljubicic > Murray. :haha:

GlennMirnyi
03-15-2007, 05:31 PM
Being able to take control of the pace of the game / hitting clean shots / creating great angles / hitting drop shots, lobs and passing shots at will / having good touch and mastering all the spins, I think makes you a finesse player.

Murray and Nalbandian have that in common, along with the returning skills.

Amazing amount of overrating. Nalbandian can sometimes be a clean player (far from having finesse, anyway), but Murray? Have you seen that forehand? That's not finesse. Even Roddick has a more decent forehand. Just because Murray has no power and can only play that boring game of passing the ball to the other side of the net and slicing until the opponent tries a winner and misses, that doesn't make him a finesse player. Finesse is also having beautiful shots, and going for them when it's possible (as Federer does).

Martin
03-15-2007, 05:32 PM
I am not sure whether he will win a Slam or not, but if he does, they will be talking about 100 years from now, just like they do when England won the football World Cup in 66.

Would have to disagree thankfully. If Henman had won a Slam then they would have gone on and on about it, like with that damn World Cup win. However because he is Scottish, the media don't have the same love for him as they did with Henman. The whole British media thing with Murray is a lot like it was with Rusedski. If he wins then he's British but if not then he's Canadian/Scottish.

kundalini
03-15-2007, 05:32 PM
He should attack more. His best tennis has been when he has unleashed all his weapons and hit through his opponents. Because it's not his natural game he's been very reluctant to deploy his big groundstrokes but when they come out it's hard to understand why he plays so cautiously most of the time. He has the best double-handed backhand in the game and yet it barely sees the light of day. Breakpoint down in the second set against Davydenko, Murray unleashes a backhand crosscourt that Davydenko simply couldn't handle. Nadal just about survived an onslaught from the Murray backhand crosscourt. Other opponents have been unable to defend against the backhand down the line shot. Just think of the damage he could do with these shots if he used them on a regular basis, practiced them so they were ready when needed on crucial points in big matches.

Hendu
03-15-2007, 05:35 PM
Amazing amount of overrating. Nalbandian can sometimes be a clean player (far from having finesse, anyway), but Murray? Have you seen that forehand? That's not finesse. Even Roddick has a more decent forehand. Just because Murray has no power and can only play that boring game of passing the ball to the other side of the net and slicing until the opponent tries a winner and misses, that doesn't make him a finesse player.

As I said, you are unable to appreciate finesse tennis. ;)


Finesse is also having beautiful shots, and going for them when it's possible (as Federer does).

Federer is a finesse player too, of course.

Jaap
03-15-2007, 05:36 PM
. The whole British media thing with Murray is a lot like it was with Rusedski. If he wins then he's British but if not then he's Canadian/Scottish.

A myth.

btw, how many times was Henman referred to as English compared to how many times Murray is referred to as Scottish?

adee-gee
03-15-2007, 05:36 PM
Ljubicic > Murray. :haha:

With which of your brilliant tennis theories did you form this?

jazar
03-15-2007, 05:37 PM
poker

Fumus
03-15-2007, 06:03 PM
Murray definitely needs to improve the serve and the fitness and it's about being aggressive at the right time.

ha he admits it!

Hitter harder to please me, has nothing to do with. Getting a floating short ball and hitting a moon ball off it which the lower ranked guy takes early and then puts Murray back on the defense is what I am talking about. Giving up the initiative in a rally....

Seneca
03-16-2007, 12:07 AM
To answer the question posed in the topic:

- Negative
- A breath of fresh air amidst all the ball-basher juniors
- Wily
- Enigmatic
- Variety
- Best summarized in one word at page 2: Subterfuge.

I hate Murray's guts due to the overblown media attention and his frequently disgusting on-court behavior but the game has won me over. I don't want to see Sharapova/Berdych-hybrids whacking the ball back and forth from the first serve to match point. Throw a slice in there somewhere, maybe a drop shot too, creep up to the net after that unexpectedly. Why hit hard groundstrokes all the time instead of waiting for and/or actively creating an actual opening before unleashing the dogs of war from the backhand side. From the viewpoint of a neutral tennis fan, Murray's clever tennis is a most welcome addition. I've also seen enough power and aggression from him to make damage when the time is right.

Kolya
03-16-2007, 12:18 AM
Murray plays like Kucera but not as good as Mecir.

GlennMirnyi
03-16-2007, 12:21 AM
As I said, you are unable to appreciate finesse tennis. ;)




Federer is a finesse player too, of course.

I could even accept your stretching on Nalbandian being a finesse player, on a good day, but Murray? :lol: Next thing you're gonna tell me Sampras was a ball-basher. :rolleyes:

With which of your brilliant tennis theories did you form this?

Why don't you call your cheerleaders to save you on this one. How many TMS finals Murray has? DC titles? GS SF?

Thank you. Ljubicic >>> Murray.

AnnaK_4ever
03-16-2007, 12:33 AM
IHow many TMS finals Murray has? DC titles? GS SF?

Thank you. Ljubicic >>> Murray.

And how many has Ljubicic had when he was 20?

But you're right. As for now, in terms of achievements, Ivan > Andy.
Still, it's not correct to compare Tour veteran with up-and-coming youngster.

Sofyaxo
03-16-2007, 12:35 AM
Murray's game is whatever Brad signals it to be.

Horatio Caine
03-16-2007, 12:35 AM
Ljubicic > Murray. :haha:

Oooooh you bitch! :devil:

Pea
03-16-2007, 12:43 AM
I'd hardly call Murray or Nalbandian's games a finesse.

Havok
03-16-2007, 12:47 AM
Gilbert is turing his game into pure ugly. I remember watching this kid in 2005 when we was starting to make a name for himself and he was so much fun to watch. Ditto 2006. His match vs Davydenko, I was fighitng to stay awake :o. I hope Gilbert doesn't to to Murray's game what he ended up doing to Roddick's game. Shot way up, but never improved any techniques and/or flaws and started to dwindle down to more crappy tennis play.

blank_frackis
03-16-2007, 12:51 AM
Would have to disagree thankfully. If Henman had won a Slam then they would have gone on and on about it, like with that damn World Cup win. However because he is Scottish, the media don't have the same love for him as they did with Henman. The whole British media thing with Murray is a lot like it was with Rusedski. If he wins then he's British but if not then he's Canadian/Scottish.

I can't agree with that to be honest, no doubt this happens in other situations - Rusedski maybe but I wasn't exposed to the British media when he was a bigger player - however I think Murray being British and Britain really having nothing else to shout about in the tennis world over-rides any feelings about him being Scottish. The British media can make you hate someone quite easily, but it's not exactly Murray's fault that he's hyped up to ridiculous levels.

Hendu
03-16-2007, 02:34 AM
I could even accept your stretching on Nalbandian being a finesse player, on a good day, but Murray? :lol: Next thing you're gonna tell me Sampras was a ball-basher. :rolleyes:

By no means.

But finesse tennis doesn't necessarily mean playing a serve and volley game. Chino Rios was a finesse player, and only a blind person can deny that. Of course, Boris Becker, Sampras and McEnroe were finesse players too.

And finesse tennis doesn't mean making winners with only one shot. Hingis or the good and old Sabatini are good examples of finesse.

Having an all around game, building points by creating angles, changing spins, controling and changing the pace of the match at will, using a big variety of shots, hitting clean shots and showing good touch is also finesse tennis.

About Nalbandian being a finesse player on a good day... I am not talking about level of play, I am talking about skills and style of game. Ljubicic, Calleri, Gonzalez, Almagro and Roddick are not finesse players. Cañas, Davydenko or Robredo are not finesse players either.

Federer, Haas, Nalbandian, Murray, Henman are some of the ones I consider finesse players.

GlennMirnyi
03-16-2007, 03:26 AM
By no means.

But finesse tennis doesn't necessarily mean playing a serve and volley game. Chino Rios was a finesse player, and only a blind person can deny that. Of course, Boris Becker, Sampras and McEnroe were finesse players too.

And finesse tennis doesn't mean making winners with only one shot. Hingis or the good and old Sabatini are good examples of finesse.

Having an all around game, building points by creating angles, changing spins, controling and changing the pace of the match at will, using a big variety of shots, hitting clean shots and showing good touch is also finesse tennis.

About Nalbandian being a finesse player on a good day... I am not talking about level of play, I am talking about skills and style of game. Ljubicic, Calleri, Gonzalez, Almagro and Roddick are not finesse players. Cañas, Davydenko or Robredo are not finesse players either.

Federer, Haas, Nalbandian, Murray, Henman are some of the ones I consider finesse players.

Creating angles, changing paces has more to do without having a killer shot than finesse.

Nalbandian isn't an adept user of the slice, probably the stroke with the most "finesse content" of em all. What about this?

Action Jackson
03-16-2007, 03:50 AM
ha he admits it!

Hitter harder to please me, has nothing to do with. Getting a floating short ball and hitting a moon ball off it which the lower ranked guy takes early and then puts Murray back on the defense is what I am talking about. Giving up the initiative in a rally....

What the hell are you talking about?

All I said was being aggressive at the right time, this does not equate to being more aggressive and just blasting the first short ball that comes his way.

Ever thought Murray has good defensive skills and being on the defensive at times doesn't bother him and it's not like he can't turn it around within the rally and there are many ways to play this game.

danton
03-16-2007, 04:14 AM
Would have to disagree thankfully. If Henman had won a Slam then they would have gone on and on about it, like with that damn World Cup win. However because he is Scottish, the media don't have the same love for him as they did with Henman. The whole British media thing with Murray is a lot like it was with Rusedski. If he wins then he's British but if not then he's Canadian/Scottish.


I'm sorry but that's bollocks. I'm English and quite frankly sick of hearing from Scots with a big chip on their shoulders.

I think you find when we mention the world cup its with embarrasment because we haven't won it for so long despite these over paid divas that are supposed to be gods gift to football we have. You will also find that Everyone loves Tim for one month of the year during Queens and Wimbledon and the rest of the year that vast majority couldn't give a damn whi should it be any different with Andy. I have read articles about Andy in the Telegraph and Times recently and they are all complementary.

For what it's worth I was cheering on Scotland against Ireland in the rugby the other week. And unless it's and England Scotland game will continue to do so.

And don't bother replying I am bored of hearing the few Scots who seem to base their identity and personality on slagging the English off thinking it's one big joke. Grow up.

Hendu
03-16-2007, 04:48 AM
Creating angles, changing paces has more to do without having a killer shot than finesse.

Not at all. Marcelo Rios, the master of the angles, had killer shots. It has more to do with style of game, than with lacking something.

The ability to get good angles is as important as having killer shots. And it requires a lot of talent.

Nalbandian isn't an adept user of the slice, probably the stroke with the most "finesse content" of em all. What about this?

Nalbandian is very capable of using a backhand slice. He is a smart player, and uses it when is necessary. It depends on the match up.

the stroke with the most "finesse content" of them all?

I don't know about that, for me many times Nalbandian's stop volleys, drop shots and lobs have more of a "finesse content" than a shot with slice to get to the net.

But this is a matter of appreciation.

RickDaStick
03-16-2007, 04:50 AM
Murray's plan is to look as ugly as possible( he does a very good job at it) and scare the opponent and make him want to get off the court as quickly as possible.

GlennMirnyi
03-16-2007, 04:52 AM
Not at all. Marcelo Rios, the master of the angles, had killer shots. It has more to do with style of game, than with lacking something.

The ability to get good angles is as important as having killer shots. And it requires a lot of talent.



Nalbandian is very capable of using a backhand slice. He is a smart player, and uses it when is necessary. It depends on the match up.

the stroke with the most "finesse content" of them all?

I don't know about that, for me many times Nalbandian's stop volleys, drop shots and lobs have more of a "finesse content" than a shot with slice to get to the net.

But this is a matter of appreciation.

Rios didn't have killer shots as Federer's forehand is a killer shot, or Guga's backhand. He was talented and had the angles, but not exactly a killer shot.

Well, that's your optic about it, and I clearly don't agree. Nalbandian almost never uses slices and isn't that good volleying.

Hendu
03-16-2007, 05:02 AM
Well, that's your optic about it, and I clearly don't agree. Nalbandian almost never uses slices and isn't that good volleying.

We won't agree about Rios.

Nalbandian uses slices for defense mostly. But he can do whatever he wants with his backhand, including good slice shots, as I said, it depends on the match ups.

Nalbandian is a very good volleyer. And I challenge you to name ten better than him. It is hard for me to find 5.

RickDaStick
03-16-2007, 05:04 AM
We won't agree about Rios.

Nalbandian uses slices for defense mostly. But he can do whatever he wants with his backhand, including good slice shots, as I said, it depends on the match ups.

Nalbandian is a very good volleyer. And I challenge you to name ten better than him. It is hard for me to find 5.

Federer
Henman
Ancic
Ljubicic
Karlovic
Mirnyi
Bopanna

Just to name a few.

Hendu
03-16-2007, 05:05 AM
Federer
Henman
Ancic
Ljubicic
Karlovic
Mirnyi
Bopanna

Just to name a few.

Thats not ten and... Ljubicic? :lol:

With all due respect of course.

RickDaStick
03-16-2007, 05:06 AM
Thats not ten and... Ljubicic? :lol:

Sorry to break it to you but Ljubo is much much better at the net than Nalby. Anyone who has seen both players play will agree.

Hendu
03-16-2007, 05:08 AM
Sorry to break it to you but Ljubo is much much better at the net than Nalby. Anyone who has seen both players play will agree.

Well, I think Nalbandian is by far the better volleyer of the two.

What can I do?

leng jai
03-16-2007, 05:19 AM
Tommy Haas is miles ahead of Nalbandian in the volleying department. But Nalby does have a very good slice backhand which he underuses.

pistolmarat
03-16-2007, 05:20 PM
-terrific return
-variety and consistency
-a smart player, mixing the game just to force errors
-generates power before a shot better than anyone else on tour
-he's quick
-he's technically sound
-fighter
-brilliant backhand
-unpredictable tactics
and so on...:D

cmurray
03-16-2007, 06:55 PM
His game is about strategy. It's about calculating what he needs to do to beat his opponent. He uses his deceptive court speed to track stuff down, he changes the pace of the ball constantly - that's why Roddick has such trouble with him.

In some ways, he kinda reminds of Andre Agassi. Oh, not his actual shots or anything, but in that way where he's constantly calculating a point - he often looks like he's several shots ahead of his opponent in his head.

But my very favorite thing about Murray's game is the way he can hit a winner when you're least expecting it. He'll be running around the baseline and you think "yep...he's gonna run out of steam any second now" and then BAM! He hits a blistering winner. Often on the dead run.

Have I mentioned that I REALLY love Murray's game? :lol:

Sunset of Age
03-16-2007, 07:18 PM
As many already said before me, I must say Murray's game indeed impresses me, as it's based on intelligence rather than on hardhitting etc.

I hope he'll have enough left in the tank to make it to the finals!

Martin
03-16-2007, 07:34 PM
I'm sorry but that's bollocks. I'm English and quite frankly sick of hearing from Scots with a big chip on their shoulders.

I think you find when we mention the world cup its with embarrasment because we haven't won it for so long despite these over paid divas that are supposed to be gods gift to football we have. You will also find that Everyone loves Tim for one month of the year during Queens and Wimbledon and the rest of the year that vast majority couldn't give a damn whi should it be any different with Andy. I have read articles about Andy in the Telegraph and Times recently and they are all complementary.

For what it's worth I was cheering on Scotland against Ireland in the rugby the other week. And unless it's and England Scotland game will continue to do so.

And don't bother replying I am bored of hearing the few Scots who seem to base their identity and personality on slagging the English off thinking it's one big joke. Grow up.

Well I'm going to reply, if nothing else to make you complain that I have.

The media have said good things about Murray, I'm not saying they haven't, but if he had been English then they would have been going on about him even more, it's not exactly rocket science. You know what they are like but it's to his benefit that he's not because the English media are a nightmare.

About Henman, the media thought he was the greatest thing ever when he was winning because he fitted the ideal identity of the sport, especially for Wimbledon. As far as Murray is concerned, I think that although most people realise he is a good player, there are still many question marks from people because they don't like him due to his temper, swearing, etc. Henman on the other hand was the so-called perfect gentleman. Despite the fact that Henman isn't exactly quiet when it comes to swearing on court.

The other thing I'd say about the media is look at the fact that Rusedski actually made it to a Grand Slam final, yet Henman didn't. If it had been the other way around, then we would hear about it constantly.

All I'm saying is that the media don't have the same love for Murray as they did for Henman. Maybe it's down to personality, maybe it's nationality but as far as Murray is concerned, that's not a bad thing.

cmurray
03-16-2007, 07:39 PM
I wonder if its much easier for those of us that don't live in the UK to like Murray??? I'm sure the hype must be very annoying...we just don't get any of that here in the states.

Duncan
03-16-2007, 08:04 PM
This thread makes me laugh. No matter what Murray achieves in the game some people will just not accept his game or him for that matter. He is at the moment one of the best players in the world and will be for many years to come if he can stay injury free.

Thank you and goodnight

tangerine_dream
03-18-2007, 06:26 PM
You'll like this Fumus :lol:

WATCHING BRAVEHEART: Andy Murray, a Scottish player, has been affectionately referred to as Braveheart by the British media.

And it might be aptly named after Friday night's match, when after taking a scary tumble in the second set to turn his troubled left ankle and bruise his hip. Murray, who took another tumble, would score a remarkable 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 victory over Tommy Haas in the quarterfinal.

Andy Roddick said he got a chance to watch the match.

"It was good TV," Roddick said. "I had a (Evander) Holyfield fight on ESPN Classic that I had to turn off to watch Murray and Haas.

"I didn't know what the hell was going on at any time during that whole match. I was thoroughly confused."

Then Roddick was asked if that is the secret to Murray's success, to confuse people.

"Confuse and conquer?" Roddick asked.

"You think he goes into the matches saying, 'I'm really going to confuse this guy, and then once I'm down a set and roll around for a while, I'm going to come out and kick his ass?' You think that's a planned attack?" :haha:

When Murray took his tumble in the second set, with a 2-0 lead and deuce on his serve, he was on the ground and his ability to continue looked in doubt. Roddick was asked what he thought at that point in the match.

"I was actually at dinner, thinking, 'I hope my steak gets here soon. I'm hungry,'" Roddick said. "I was over at the bar watching the TV while we were waiting for our food, these guys were sitting behind, they were saying, 'Oh, he's out for four months.'

"I said, 'I think he'll be running around in 15 or 20 (minutes) here.'

"And I won."

Peoples
03-18-2007, 06:48 PM
I agree with the people saying that variety is key for Murray. He can do it while a lot of others can't. It's not all about trying to "outhit" everybody with a lot of topspin - there are so many guys that are good at this, so variety is Murray's competitive advantage.

Besides, Murray has excellent technique which enables him to hit very consistent quality shots against anyone a bit like Nalbandian.

If you're looking for a guy looking to confuse his opponents, you've got the wrong one - it's Monfils that you're after.

BORO77
03-18-2007, 08:39 PM
I think apart from his variety also his speed and reflexes are a big reason why he is performing so well and of course counterpunching.
i cant stand this guy but i must admit that he is getting better and better, Wimbledon will be interesting to watch:)