PDA

View Full Version : Murray is the most boring player to watch


clayrules
04-05-2009, 11:20 AM
Human backboard he is, and a consistent one. Running from side to side until the other guy makes a mistake or a poor approach shot to get passed. This is how Murray wins matches. Aggressive baseline game, service winners and volley winners are the exception. That is not variety. He wins playing backboard tennis.
Thank God clay season is coming soon and we will not hear from him.

Serpententacle
04-05-2009, 11:26 AM
Agree, he is boring... but he deserves some credit. He is winning matches by it. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Would you give up your success because a few people call you boring?

Feņa14
04-05-2009, 11:30 AM
Human backboard he is, and a consistent one. Running from side to side until the other guy makes a mistake or a poor approach shot to get passed. This is how Murray wins matches. Aggressive baseline game, service winners and volley winners are the exception. That is not variety. He wins playing backboard tennis.
Thank God clay season is coming soon and we will not hear from him.

So i'm guessing you don't like Nadal either?

oneguy21
04-05-2009, 11:31 AM
He just pushed way too much today, but he can be fun to watch sometimes.

clayman2000
04-05-2009, 11:32 AM
So i'm guessing you don't like Nadal either?

Nadal has a lot more flare than Murray. the vamos's, incredible gets, passing shots which only he can hit, and best of all his defence to offence transition which at times, like agaisnt Roddick looks beautiful

None the less they are both fantastic players who have earned everything they have

Topaz
04-05-2009, 11:34 AM
Human backboard he is, and a consistent one. Running from side to side until the other guy makes a mistake or a poor approach shot to get passed. This is how Murray wins matches. Aggressive baseline game, service winners and volley winners are the exception. That is not variety. He wins playing backboard tennis.
Thank God clay season is coming soon and we will not hear from him.

What makes you think that we won't hear from him during the clay season? Doesn't clay suit is style...perfectly?

Notice, that while he is running side to side waiting for the other guy to make a mistake...that he is *NOT* making mistakes.

That doesn't happen without a lot of hard work and smarts.

Serpententacle
04-05-2009, 11:34 AM
Nadal has a lot more flare than Murray. the vamos's, incredible gets, passing shots which only he can hit, and best of all his defence to offence transition which at times, like agaisnt Roddick looks beautiful

None the less they are both fantastic players who have earned everything they have

My favorite time to like Nadal is when he spanks Murray.

Telepatic
04-05-2009, 11:36 AM
I think he trains passing shot,serve and running around most, and thats it lol

ctmcarlo
04-05-2009, 11:37 AM
I also agree! He just puts the ball back into the court (sometimes from very difficult positions, but yeah, irritating to watch)

He is such an unattractive player, looks sloppy by the way he walks, his physique is not that of your ideal tennis player, but amazingly he is damn quick.

I don't think any youngsters would like to copy his style of play either...

Whenever he's playing, I watch the other guy move on the court rather than him, because you know the ball is coming back, like a wall....so boring!

NickC
04-05-2009, 12:11 PM
He's from the UK. People from there are stereotypically boring. Nothing personal, but that's the way I see it. I mean, they're a great, friendly bunch, but a bit boring. But maybe that's what happens when it rains 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

But IMO, Murray's game isn't as bad as some people say it is. Sure, he's no Federer or Sampras, and doesn't really play very offensive, attacking tennis, but that doesn't mean he's boring...

GameSampras
04-05-2009, 12:14 PM
I agree. He is boring. Boring looking player, boring play in general. But he does have game and whatever he is doing is working. Not lets see if he can prove something on grass and clay and at the slams

GameSampras
04-05-2009, 12:16 PM
Murray has a game thats very much beatable if the opposing player has a deadly offensive game. Fed at his peak, not the Roger we see now , Sampras at his peak, Andre at his peak could OBLITERATE Murray with their style of games I think. Andre would totally dictate against Murray from the baseline, Pete would serve Murray off the court, and Fed could do what we saw he did to Murray at the USO

Cesc Fabregas
04-05-2009, 12:19 PM
Murray has a game thats very much beatable if the opposing play has a deadly offensive game. Fed at his peak, not the Roger we see now , Sampras at his peak, Andre at his peak could OBLITERATE Murray with his style of game I think


Agreed his ineffective ground strokes would get him into a lot of trouble against guys like Sampras or Becker.

RoddickAce
04-05-2009, 12:19 PM
Boring? Yes. Effective? Yes. He must be a nightmare to play, how do you beat a counterpuncher with a big serve and good passing shots? And actually, I think Nadal's offense is underrated. He isn't just a pusher, he is actually very aggressive.

Lsmkenpo
04-05-2009, 12:21 PM
It is not as if Murray is incapable of playing an offensive game, he can turn it up a notch when he needs to, he chooses the best style to beat the opponent he is facing at the time and often against players like Fed, and Djoker who like to play shotmaker tennis his defensive style is the best gameplan.

PimpMyGame
04-05-2009, 12:25 PM
He's from the UK. People from there are stereotypically boring. Nothing personal, but that's the way I see it. I mean, they're a great, friendly bunch, but a bit boring. But maybe that's what happens when it rains 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

But IMO, Murray's game isn't as bad as some people say it is. Sure, he's no Federer or Sampras, and doesn't really play very offensive, attacking tennis, but that doesn't mean he's boring...

We can all be stereotypical...I mean, how do you guys get time to play tennis when all you do is eat McDonalds every day?:wink:

fgzhu88
04-05-2009, 12:26 PM
depends on who he plays. Against Nadal or Djokovic or Federer, he has to play "boring"/safe tennis in order to win.

But when he plays Wawrinka or Gasquet or Roddick, you will see him go for more and play more cat & mouse games.

But still, better seeing consistency than error festivals, no?? (referring to Federer against Djoker :cry: )

Chadwixx
04-05-2009, 12:28 PM
I kinda like his shot selection and strat. He has a very good crosscourt backhand. If you notice he puts the forehand crosscourt a bit shorter then drives the backhand deep crosscourt, puts them on the backfoot and takes control. Really seems to bother players.

The mixing up of pace is also nice to see, havent seen alot of that since hingis. Id say the majority of people here dont understand the rise-peak-fall rule in tennis.

His point construction is very entertaining but you gotta play at a lvl to understand what he is actually doing.

GameSampras
04-05-2009, 12:29 PM
He's beatable. He certainly is no tennis prodigy and exquisite talent. Hes kind of like that workhorse with a pretty nice all around game but lacking a severe deadly weapon to his arsenal. Great defensive player with great anticipation though. Pretty solid all around for sure though.

nevisben
04-05-2009, 12:29 PM
Murray has a game thats very much beatable if the opposing play has a deadly offensive game. Fed at his peak, not the Roger we see now , Sampras at his peak, Andre at his peak could OBLITERATE Murray with their style of games I think. Andre would totally dictate against Murray from the baseline, Pete would serve Murray off the court, and Fed could do what we saw he did to Murray at the USO

He must be good if it takes some of the best players of all time to be at their peak to beat him.
Murray plays quite well against big servers, he has shown he can handle Rafa from the baseline and I don't think he played to his peak against Fed at the USO last year.

He's from the UK. People from there are stereotypically boring. Nothing personal, but that's the way I see it. I mean, they're a great, friendly bunch, but a bit boring. But maybe that's what happens when it rains 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Just not as excitable and hyper as some

GameSampras
04-05-2009, 12:33 PM
He must be good if it takes some of the best players of all time to be at their peak to beat him.
Murray plays quite well against big servers, he has shown he can handle Rafa from the baseline and I don't think he played to his peak against Fed at the USO last year.



Just not as excitable and hyper as some


He is definitely solid all around.. No doubt about that. I mean he is definitely better IMO than Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Blake, Ljubicic, and others were these past years. Definitely one of the better players that have came along these last few years . But Im just saying he is beatable if you have the right game

maximo
04-05-2009, 12:35 PM
He is definitely solid all around.. No doubt about that. I mean he is definitely better IMO than Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Blake, Ljubicic, and others were these past years. Definitely one of the better players that have came along these last few years . But Im just saying he is beatable if you have the right game

Elaborate.

Staiger
04-05-2009, 12:38 PM
I found him quite interesting to watch , it is nice to see someone playing with their brain rather than just trying to hit the ball as hard as they could .......(i.e. d/p) :)

Serpententacle
04-05-2009, 12:38 PM
I think Delpo has a good chance of beating Murray. All it takes is a good service game... and you can beat pretty much anybody. Once Delpo's serve broke down, Murray had the clear advantage.

GameSampras
04-05-2009, 12:38 PM
Elaborate.

I think Deadly serve-volley players such as Becker, Sampras, Goran, Edberg etc would give Murray a complete BEATDOWN since judging his style of game which relies heavily on defense and how he is not comfortable himself coming into the net. Players such as Becker and Sampras could lick their chops playing against someone with Murray's style of game. A player like Agassi for instance could have a field day with Murray. Agassi could dictate play and attack Murray's 2nd serve like there was no tomorrow and run Murray side to side until keeled over from exhaustion

Cesc Fabregas
04-05-2009, 12:38 PM
Elaborate.

Alot of his groundies land short people should attack them more.

Breaker
04-05-2009, 12:38 PM
Murray has a game thats very much beatable if the opposing player has a deadly offensive game. Fed at his peak, not the Roger we see now , Sampras at his peak, Andre at his peak could OBLITERATE Murray with their style of games I think. Andre would totally dictate against Murray from the baseline, Pete would serve Murray off the court, and Fed could do what we saw he did to Murray at the USO

Murray could do what he has done to Federer 6/8 times they have played.

Murray could neutralise Pete's serve with his great returning skill.

Murray could stay with Agassi from the baseline as he doesn't mind being dictated against.

Also, much like Hewitt, Murray would be a nightmare for a serve and volley type player.

Chadwixx
04-05-2009, 12:39 PM
He's beatable. He certainly is no tennis prodigy and exquisite talent. Hes kind of like that workhorse with a pretty nice all around game but lacking a severe deadly weapon to his arsenal. Great defensive player with great anticipation though. Pretty solid all around for sure though.

Forgot to mention he serves harder than pete :)

Cesc Fabregas
04-05-2009, 12:41 PM
Murray could do what he has done to Federer 6/8 times they have played.

Murray could neutralise Pete's serve with his great returning skill.

Murray could stay with Agassi from the baseline as he doesn't mind being dictated against.

Also, much like Hewitt, Murray would be a nightmare for a serve and volley type player.

Sampras would blow Murray off the court.

GameSampras
04-05-2009, 12:41 PM
Murray could do what he has done to Federer 6/8 times they have played.

Murray could neutralise Pete's serve with his great returning skill.

Murray could stay with Agassi from the baseline as he doesn't mind being dictated against.

Also, much like Hewitt, Murray would be a nightmare for a serve and volley type player.

Ohh god... Pete was 30 years old and had just played Safin, Andre, Rafter all in a row. Prime Pete would have no trouble with Hewitt. NONE!!!. Watch the USO 00 between these two if you want to see how a real match between them would go. Murray couldnt neutralized CRAP off Pete's 1st and 2nd serves. Pete was the master at disguising his serve. Andre was more solid at dictating play from the baseline than any player currently on tour today. Im talking Prime Pete and ANdre here.. Not shell of them former selves Pete and ANdre


I only wished Prime Andre could have played into today's one dimensional homogenized conditions with no serve-volley attackers.

Chadwixx
04-05-2009, 12:43 PM
Alot of his groundies land short people should attack them more.

Unless you move into the court (opening up murrays next shot), you cant attack his shot because its on the decline. Its part of his strat (very advanced). Your in a roll fest basically which bores the player and makes them go for too much.

GameSampras
04-05-2009, 12:44 PM
Murray could love tap Pete's serve back if he could even manage getting a racket on it and Pete would just come into the net with flying overhead slams. Murray would be no trouble at all for Pete

Cesc Fabregas
04-05-2009, 12:44 PM
Murray could do what he has done to Federer 6/8 times they have played.

Murray could neutralise Pete's serve with his great returning skill.

Murray could stay with Agassi from the baseline as he doesn't mind being dictated against.

Also, much like Hewitt, Murray would be a nightmare for a serve and volley type player.

Agassi would destroy Murray's second serve.

Cesc Fabregas
04-05-2009, 12:45 PM
Murray could love tap Pete's serve back if he could even manage getting a racket on it and Pete would just come into the net with flying overhead slams. Murray would be no trouble at all for Pete

Exactly Djoker attacked Murray and the net and had success and Sampras was 100 times better at the net than Djoker.

edberg505
04-05-2009, 12:46 PM
Ohh god... Pete was 30 years old and had just played Safin, Andre, Rafter all in a row. Prime Pete would have no trouble with Hewitt. NONE!!!. Watch the USO 00 between these two if you want to see how a real match between them would go. Murray couldnt neutralized CRAP off Pete's 1st and 2nd serves. Pete was the master at disguising his serve. Andre was more solid at dictating play from the baseline than any player currently on tour today.


I only wished Prime Andre could have played into today's one dimensional homogenized conditions with no serve-volley attackers.

Yeah, kinda like he had no problem with Chang.

maximo
04-05-2009, 12:46 PM
Not much use talking about past pro's. The fact is, Murray is playing better than both Djokovic and Fed so therefore he should win a slam this year.

GameSampras
04-05-2009, 12:48 PM
Yeah, kinda like he had no problem with Chang.

He didnt have any trouble with chang at the slams from mid 90s on. Sampras DESTROYED Chang at the slams. Much as he would destroy Murray. Federer's style of game would be a much more of a problem for Pete than Murray or Nadal's would be. Its all about matchups

Chadwixx
04-05-2009, 12:52 PM
Chang made it deep into the fast court tournies, pete didnt make it deep into the slow court surfaces.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Chang%2C+Michael&player2=sampras

Chang would of had the edge had pete been better on slow surfaces. Kinda like the nadal vs fed head to head record before nadal started winning on the grass/hard.

edberg505
04-05-2009, 12:53 PM
He didnt have any trouble with chang at the slams from mid 90s on. Sampras DESTROYED Chang. Much as he would destroy Murray.

You said he would have no problem which is total bs. But of course nothing objective ever comes up on the screen when discussing the great infallible Pete Sampras. Even the matches later in there careers weren't even blowouts. And Murray has a better serve and better net skills than Chang did and you are saying he wouldn't have a problem at all? C'mon dude, just one time be somewhat objective. I'm no Murray fan by any stretch of the imagination but I know he would trouble Sampras, and this is coming from a pretty big Sampras fan.

bluetrain4
04-05-2009, 12:55 PM
I also think he's boring when he's playing another baseliner, which in today's game is almost every match. If his opponent mixes it up, Murray is a lot more fun to watch.

But, I don't fault him. He's a fantastic retreiver and it's got him pretty far so far. He does deserve a lot of credit. It's harder to play that way than it may seem.

Breaker
04-05-2009, 12:57 PM
Ohh god... Pete was 30 years old and had just played Safin, Andre, Rafter all in a row. Prime Pete would have no trouble with Hewitt. NONE!!!. Watch the USO 00 between these two if you want to see how a real match between them would go. Murray couldnt neutralized CRAP off Pete's 1st and 2nd serves. Pete was the master at disguising his serve. Andre was more solid at dictating play from the baseline than any player currently on tour today. Im talking Prime Pete and ANdre here.. Not shell of them former selves Pete and ANdre


I only wished Prime Andre could have played into today's one dimensional homogenized conditions with no serve-volley attackers.

Murray has a very similar skillset to Hewitt, who has a winning record against just about every serve and volleyer he ever played.

Great passing shots, offensive lob off of both wings, neutralising return of serve as well as ability to attack the second serve, and ability to extend points with consistency and foot speed.

He wouldn't win every time but to say he would be obliterated by Sampras and other serve and volleyers is very unlikely when you look at the skill set he possesses.

GameSampras
04-05-2009, 12:58 PM
You said he would have no problem which is total bs. But of course nothing objective ever comes up on the screen when discussing the great infallible Pete Sampras. Even the matches later in there careers weren't even blowouts. And Murray has a better serve and better net skills than Chang did and you are saying he wouldn't have a problem at all? Common dude, just one time be somewhat objective. I'm no Murray fan by any stretch of the imagination but I know he would trouble Sampras, and this is coming from a pretty big Sampras fan.

Great defense by a player who can keep balls in play and with a great all around ability can bother a player like Federer, especially if Fed is having an off day from the ground on his FH's and BH's strokes as he has shown these days . But that style of play usually wont hurt deadly offensive attackers with big serve serves and deadly net games unless its on clay

edberg505
04-05-2009, 01:02 PM
Great defense by a player who can keep balls in play and with a great all around ability can bother a player like Federer, especially if Fed is having an off day from the ground on his FH's and BH's strokes as he has shown these days . But that style of play usually wont hurt deadly offensive attackers with big serve serves and deadly net games unless its on clay

Ok, whatever you say. The great Sampras would own anyone in the history of the sport.

welcome2petrkordaland
04-05-2009, 01:03 PM
interesting how half of this topic's posters obviously don't understand Murray's tactics. the beauty of his tactics lies in the ease with which can TOTALLY change them, depending on who he's playing. like someone else said, it's nice to see someone using his head out there.

don't limit Murray to a defensive counter puncher. against big shotmakers (like someone already said), that the winning strategy. have you ever seen murray play against more consistent, pusher types. Watch him absolutely brutalize Santoro, for example, with winner after winner after winner.

Murray must be a nightmare to play against. he's got a floaty, superconsistent bh, a driving, flatter, more attacking bh, a superaccurate slice bh, a solid fh, great hands, a solid and sometimes brutal serve, nasty wheels, and the best tennis IQ in the game, along with Nadal.

sorry but i don't see Murray as boring at all.

tennis is a game of pressure and murray knows how to apply pressure to his opponents not only by hitting big shots when necessary, but also by tempting/daring them the go for something, watching them miss and then the subsequent breakdown of their mental games.

TheTruth
04-05-2009, 01:06 PM
^^^^
Agree with above poster. The only boring thing about Murray's play is the relative ease with which he beats most opponents.

I do prefer watching him play shotmakers though, and...

I don't understand why he continually goes on walkabouts in the middle of matches.

Depending on who he plays I root for him.

Feņa14
04-05-2009, 01:09 PM
He's from the UK. People from there are stereotypically boring. Nothing personal, but that's the way I see it. I mean, they're a great, friendly bunch, but a bit boring. But maybe that's what happens when it rains 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

But IMO, Murray's game isn't as bad as some people say it is. Sure, he's no Federer or Sampras, and doesn't really play very offensive, attacking tennis, but that doesn't mean he's boring...

You've said that before and I don't quite know where it comes from.

Most people seem to think British people are the most quirky around, it's probably the only place where the people actually have self of humour named after them.. i.e.. the British sense of humour.

We're a tiny island who have the worlds most talented musicians, comedians, actors and some of the best sports people on the planet.

Stereotypically boring? lol ok.

Clydey2times
04-05-2009, 01:26 PM
Human backboard he is, and a consistent one. Running from side to side until the other guy makes a mistake or a poor approach shot to get passed. This is how Murray wins matches. Aggressive baseline game, service winners and volley winners are the exception. That is not variety. He wins playing backboard tennis.
Thank God clay season is coming soon and we will not hear from him.

Unlike Nadal, who hits winners constantly?

You do realise that Murray pretty much doubles Nadal's winner when they play each other?

Clydey2times
04-05-2009, 01:29 PM
depends on who he plays. Against Nadal or Djokovic or Federer, he has to play "boring"/safe tennis in order to win.

But when he plays Wawrinka or Gasquet or Roddick, you will see him go for more and play more cat & mouse games.

But still, better seeing consistency than error festivals, no?? (referring to Federer against Djoker :cry: )

Murray goes all out offensive when he plays Nadal? Watch their USO 08 match or their AO 07 match. Rarely will you ever see better attacking play.

thejoe
04-05-2009, 01:31 PM
Murray goes all out offensive when he plays Nadal? Watch their USO 08 match or their AO 07 match. Rarely will you ever see better attacking play.

All I remember from their US Open semi was Murray camping out literally meters behind the baseline and retrieving everything.

Clydey2times
04-05-2009, 01:36 PM
All I remember from their US Open semi was Murray camping out literally meters behind the baseline and retrieving everything.

Are you kidding?

Murray hit 65 winners in that match. Nadal hit 32 winners. That's more than double.

You clearly didn't watch the match.

thejoe
04-05-2009, 01:37 PM
Are you kidding?

Murray hit 65 winners in that match. Nadal hit 32 winners. That's more than double.

You clearly didn't watch the match.

Well I did, and remember him camping out behind the baseline.

Clydey2times
04-05-2009, 01:39 PM
Well I did, and remember him camping out behind the baseline.

So how did he manage to hit 65 winners to Nadal's 32? Take your time.

Clydey2times
04-05-2009, 01:51 PM
Well I did, and remember him camping out behind the baseline.

I didn't expect you to reply.

Here's another clip of Murray camping behind the baseline against Nadal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ntzBVCvHVY

Serpententacle
04-05-2009, 01:58 PM
I didn't expect you to reply.

Here's another clip of Murray camping behind the baseline against Nadal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ntzBVCvHVY

Wow... you gave only 11 minutes to reply... cool your jets.

thejoe
04-05-2009, 01:59 PM
I didn't expect you to reply.

Here's another clip of Murray camping behind the baseline against Nadal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ntzBVCvHVY

Clearly this means more to you than it does to me. All I remember was watching the match, and Murray being out of screen to return serve, and watching him scurry. Clearly that is not true for the whole match. I am also basing my judgment on what I have seen from him lately, which is exactly as I had described. I think you will have a harder time proving that Murray plays aggressive tennis constantly. I trust you have been watching him for the last few months?

Clydey2times
04-05-2009, 02:00 PM
Wow... you gave only 11 minutes to reply... cool your jets.

People tend not to reply when their position in an argument is untenable.

Clydey2times
04-05-2009, 02:01 PM
Clearly this means more to you than it does to me. All I remember was watching the match, and Murray being out of screen to return serve, and watching him scurry. Clearly that is not true for the whole match. I think you will have a harder time proving that Murray plays aggressive tennis constantly. I trust you have been watching him for the last few months?

Murray did return serve from deep. What does that have to do with the rallies? He hit Nadal off the court and you don't do that if you're camped a mile behind the baseline.

I didn't say that Murray always plays aggressive. I said that he plays aggressively against Nadal. Everyone knows that Muzza's default style is counterpunching.

thejoe
04-05-2009, 02:04 PM
Murray did return serve from deep. What does that have to do with the rallies? He hit Nadal off the court and you don't do that if you're camped a mile behind the baseline.

I didn't say that Murray always plays aggressive. I said that he plays aggressively against Nadal. Everyone knows that Muzza's default style is counterpunching.

It seems to me that it is incredibly hard to be aggressive from such a defensive position. Returning from that far sets you up to retrieve and counter-punch, and not to go after the point. So it has a lot to do with the rallies. Clearly Murray didn't do this all match.

Clydey2times
04-05-2009, 02:07 PM
It seems to me that it is incredibly hard to be aggressive from such a defensive position. Returning from that far sets you up to retrieve and counter-punch, and not to go after the point. So it has a lot to do with the rallies. Clearly Murray didn't do this all match.

Yes, he did. Murray takes up a deep position to return and then takes a giant step forward. Once the return is in play he takes up a more advanced position. The fact that he hit 65 winners and doubled Nadal's winners is pretty much conclusive evidence of that.

I've seen the match on several occasions and Murray was supremely aggressive in it. Lost count of the number of forehands up the line he either hit a winner with or forced an error with.

EtePras
04-05-2009, 02:11 PM
Much more interesting than the guy who dominated the 90's with nothing but a serve.

djoko4thewin
04-05-2009, 02:17 PM
agree, up to an extent, murray knew what he was doing although it was dull, djoko didn't have the confidence or play particularly well.

jimbo333
04-05-2009, 02:57 PM
Much more interesting than the guy who dominated the 90's with nothing but a serve.

If you are talking about Sampras here, you are probably wrong:)

Most of the time Murray really isn't boring to watch at all in my opinion, but then I'm British, and Connors is my favourite player:):)

mrmo1115
04-05-2009, 03:12 PM
Murray isn't that boring to watch. IMO.

OrangePower
04-05-2009, 03:16 PM
Human backboard he is, and a consistent one. Running from side to side until the other guy makes a mistake or a poor approach shot to get passed. This is how Murray wins matches. Aggressive baseline game, service winners and volley winners are the exception. That is not variety. He wins playing backboard tennis.
Thank God clay season is coming soon and we will not hear from him.

Boring?!?

I find Murray very interesting to watch. Lots of things can be learned from watching him:

* Excellent point construction.

* Transition from defense to offense.

* Smart angle passing shots

Other players may pound the ball more, but us average players can learn much more from Murray because these are things we can apply to our game, whereas consistent ball-bashing which is what most players do these days is more a skill (that most of us just don't have and never will).