[Kowchi]

Murray had to play 4th Fiddle for much of his career.

He has a pretty stupendous game , athleticism, and fighting mentality.

Murray was on the brink for a long time barely losing to Federer , Djokovic and Nadal.

But really what seperated him from the other guys, why doesn't he have 10 plus slams?

I wonder if it might be his serve. Unlike the other guys , his serve cant really bail him out or get him as many free points.

Or was it due to his defensive oriented playstyle that he had for so many years?
Lendl helped him quite a bit, but he still lost to Djokovic so many times.

What do you think?

 

[Chokehater]

No, a good forehand.

 

[smithy]

I always felt Murray was a bit of a poor man's Djokovic.

 

[guitarra]

In my opinion Andy should have been more offensive, that's one of the things that stopped him from winning more.

 

[doubletrollt]

Or was it due to his defensive oriented playstyle that he had for so many years?
Lendl helped him quite a bit, but he still lost to Djokovic so many times.

What do you think?

Yep, as Federer has warned him long time ago.

If there had been only two ordinary (7-8 slams) ATG players in his peaking years, Murray might've won 7-8 slams at least, but you can't really expect to regularly beat at least two of Fedalovic (in QF/SF and then F) with his physically & mentally very demanding defensive minded approach.

And like Fedovic, he usually had just three chances per season, because RG was Nadal's.

 

[bhdtl]

His forehand and second serve were weaknesses. Also, he wasn't on Novak's or even Nadal's level athletically.

 

[zzzyyy]

Nadal was winning slams despite not getting free points early in his career at all, but of course he's the greatest baseline player ever. Plus he was always able to defend his 2nd serve way better than Murray.

2nd serve and an elite forehand were Murray's main shortcomings. Also playing a bit too defensive at times, but Murray by nature isn't really an attacking player (doesn't have a good enough FH).

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

1) Forehand
2) Second Serve
3) Ability to be offensive and be attacking.
If he had these three, he would've been another Djokovic or Agassi. He would've won 10+ slams.

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

It’s his forehand, second serve, and offensive play. You’re not gonna beat the big 3 with a weak forehand, WTA second serve, and the big 3 are simply too good to defeat solely with defensive play other than Federer on a bad day. His first serve is also too inconsistent. He can get some nice bombs with it but it’s not reliable enough.

 

[Tennis9000+]

Tactically, he was too defensive and almost a pusher tbh.

Mentally, he wasn't at the same level as the Big 3. Fedalovic are way too strong in that aspect.

Technically, FH and second serve were not GOATy enough as everyone has already mentioned.

 

[Yuma]

Well an improved serve certainly would have won him a few more things, would not have hurt him (or any player) one bit. Not sure if it would have won him more slams, but it would give him more chances and more smaller titles. Depends how much of a serving improvement we're talking about I suppose.

 

[Dull]

Roger is successful because he has the GOATest attacking game (and obviously he played a bunch of mugs while racking up the Slams... if Murray had to play Philippoussis and Baghdatis in Slam finals he'd have double digits too).

King is successful because he has the GOATest mentality.

Dull is successful because he is left-handed and hits moonballs on clay.

Sir Andy has none of these things, and never will.

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

Wasn't Murray taller than the big 3? He could've easily developed a serve like Federer or Djokovic and a Nadal like second serve throughout his career.

 

[mistercrabs]

I think psychology is a big factor. I really think he could have won 3-4 of the slam finals he lost if he was stronger mentally. But of course the big 3 have mental supremacy over the entire field, which is why they frequently win matches they should lose.

 

[Sara X]

I'd say the first hurdle Andy had to overcome was a mental one combined with not the greatest physique when he was younger. He's often told how he felt he would always remain as the loser, losing to one of the other three guys. For long he thought he would just never even win a single Slam (despite his Slam final appearances).

Once he got past that spell with Lendl, the road was kinda open for him. But once you learn to know him better, you'll realise that he just may have been a bit too analytic all the way, which led to him adopting his defensive playstyle up to that sort of levels which were no longer necessary for him. I guess he got so deep into analysing the opponents game while on court - sometimes waiting for their errors, sometimes more actively trying to lure the opponents into committing errors while doing that - that it was too easy for him to forget to always actively dictate the points on court, which he imo should have done much more, as he had all the capabilities of doing that, even with his often criticised fh.

The above is what I most likely see as the greatest difference, if such needs to be found.

But there are other obvious differences as well:

Playing a really offensive game was never natural for Andy, and that's just a combination of the sort of personality and mentality he has. This shortcoming has, however, always been one of his greatest strengths as well. He's extremely patient, has always had the ability to patiently construct points and win long rallies.

Then, just like pretty much everyone has already said here, it also came down to his fh and serve, and for me not just his 2nd serve, as his serve motion in 1st serve has never been the most optimal. Could have acquired a lot more with both serves.

And while Andy fell short in the above respects, I've never ever seen a fighter quite like him on court, neither many players with such a high tennis IQ as he has - the latter which again comes partly down to his analysing skills, which are a double ended sword, but also to his natural intuition skills.

Just some quick thoughts of mine here - even though this was never going to be a short post from me - and I may have to revisit this subject later on, as I might have simply overlooked something (while watching Shapo vs. Dimi as writing this) that'll pop into my mind later on.

 

[Rik1001]

I think this is a really good question actually.

I would say a combination of a few things:

1.) Forehand - I find that his base level forehand is usually quite slow with loads of spin and he has a tendancy to go CC with it too much. When he won his majors he was really stepping into his forehand and hitting through it/flattening it out. DTLF is almost non-existent.

2.) Serve - the second serve has always been his achilles heel. Very slow, predictable and too central. He worked on it a lot and had some success post-2015. I think it has become less of a problem in recent years. Also - his consistency is not great. He will have matches were his first serve percentage is dropping way below 50% which is really unacceptable in a big match. That just invites more pressure onto your second serve.

3.) Endurance - against Djokovic it was a very similar pattern. They trade groundstrokes for a few hours and then Murray wilts away in the fourth or fifth 1-6 or 0-6. Novak knew that he had the physical advantage over Murray and could out grind him. Interestingly the two Grand Slam finals Murray won against Novak he won the first two sets - never did Murray come from behind to beat him in a major.

Have a look through this spreadsheet I made detailing all the stats for the eleven Grand Slam finals Murray has contested -
Andy Murray - ALL Grand Slam Finals - Match Stats.xlsx

Makes interesting reading - the Wimbledon 2012 final against Roger his stats were excellent yet he lost in four sets. Three of his finals against Djokovic his second serve win percentage was in the low 30s!!

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

Wasn't Murray taller than the big 3? He could've easily developed a serve like Federer or Djokovic and a Nadal like second serve throughout his career.

He is and Dull’s second serve is weak in terms of pace but he spins it either into the body or opponents backhand which makes it harder for the opponent to attack it whereas Murray’s just sits up and is waiting to get fucked

 

[Johnny Groove]

He was always in the running, just losing in the biggest moments

Lendl helping him to get an attacking and finishing forehand was for me the decisive thing that pushed him over the top. Combined of course with superhuman physical and mental capabilities

 

[xdrewitdajx]

FH more so
But also 2nd serve for sure

 

[Burrow]

Murray had to play 4th Fiddle for much of his career.

He has a pretty stupendous game , athleticism, and fighting mentality.

Murray was on the brink for a long time barely losing to Federer , Djokovic and Nadal.

But really what seperated him from the other guys, why doesn't he have 10 plus slams?

I wonder if it might be his serve. Unlike the other guys , his serve cant really bail him out or get him as many free points.

Or was it due to his defensive oriented playstyle that he had for so many years?
Lendl helped him quite a bit, but he still lost to Djokovic so many times.

What do you think?

One of the most bizarre threads in the history of Mens Tennis Forums.

Just when I thought you couldn't, you've outdone yourself. Utterly clueless.

Andy Murray's first serve was a canon, which could easily match or surpass Roger Federer in any given match - far better than the other two.