PDA

View Full Version : Is Murray an all-court player?


billnepill
10-27-2009, 01:57 PM
I saw the other thread about Federer, if he was an all-court player... That made me remember something that seemed odd to me. In a PC game Murray was labelled as "all-court player".

So the question is - do you consider Murray an all-court specialist?

All-rounder
10-27-2009, 02:00 PM
This thread is just going to start another war

DownTheLine
10-27-2009, 02:01 PM
I don't think so.

His serve isn't the best, and his volleys are good but not great.

He grinds it out from the baseline.

All-rounder
10-27-2009, 02:03 PM
OP could you please define 'all courter'

Cesc Fabregas
10-27-2009, 02:04 PM
no .

Omega_7000
10-27-2009, 02:06 PM
No he is not.

IvanAndreevich
10-27-2009, 02:06 PM
He isn't, but he could be.

Ripster
10-27-2009, 02:07 PM
He has the skill-set to be an all-court player but he chooses to only play the baseline, so no.

aleexxxxx
10-27-2009, 02:07 PM
If all courter = pusher. Then yes. Otherwise... No

Anaconda
10-27-2009, 02:10 PM
I don't think so.

His serve isn't the best, and his volleys are good but not great.

He grinds it out from the baseline.

Karlovic has the best serve ever and has great volleys - does this make him an all-courter?

billnepill
10-27-2009, 02:15 PM
OP could you please define 'all courter'

I'm not sure anymore. Reading the definition of Wikipedia, I definitely think that Federer is an all-courter ( despite all the comments in the other thread). Not so sure about Murray . Here's what Wikipedia says:

All-court players have aspects of every tennis style, whether that be offensive baseliner, defensive counter-puncher or serve-and-volleyer. All-court players use the best bits from each style and mix it together to create a truly formidable tennis style to play against. In game situations, they have the ability to select an action usually executed by one tennis style. They usually have an attacking game, mixing some groundstrokes and volleys to keep the opponent guessing. Most all-court players won't rush the net immediately after a serve like a typical serve and volley player would. However, their game often revolves around "constructing" a point to where they will be able to approach the net and put away an easy volley or pulling their opponent into the net and hitting a passing shot. They are very versatile; when an all-court player's baseline game is not working, he may switch to a net game, and vice versa. All-court players have the ability to adjust to different opponents that play different styles easier than pure baseliners or serve and volleyers. All-court players stereotypically have the speed, determination and fitness of a defensive counter-puncher, the confidence, skill and flair of offensive baseliners and have the touch, the agility around the net and tactical thinking of the serve-and-volleyer. But just because the all-court player has a combination of skills used by all tennis styles doesn't necessarily mean that they could beat an offensive baseliner or a defensive counter-puncher or even a serve-and-volleyer. It just means it would be more difficult to read the game of an all-court player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_strategy

rosenstar
10-27-2009, 02:25 PM
Yes he's an all court player, He can grind, he can volley, he can rip the ball, he can hit the off pace ball, he can serve and volley, he can bring his opponents in and he can approach. Sounds like an all court player to me...

mtr1
10-27-2009, 02:45 PM
No. Doesn't come to the net often enough, never serves and volleys.

Gugafan
10-27-2009, 03:09 PM
No. Doesn't come to the net often enough, never serves and volleys.

Very true. Infact during his early days, particularly at the Aus Open against Nadal he was serve and volleying to great effect. He seems to rely more on his counterpunching ability these days.

norbac
10-27-2009, 04:02 PM
Not at the moment, no. He has the ability to, though.

Feņa14
10-27-2009, 04:24 PM
I agree, the potential is certainly there. The match with Nadal at the Australian Open springs to mind, he just chooses not to use it all that much.

Ripper014
10-27-2009, 04:37 PM
My personal definition of an all-court player is one that could win playing any style of game. All pro's have the ability to be effective in all facets of the game when push comes to shove but could they win playing a game outside their comfort level. An example would be Nadal doing nothing but serve and volleying for a match.

I would not include my list of players that I would consider all court players. My list would include:

John McEnroe
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Roger Federer
Pete Samparas
Hana Mandilkova
Evonne Goolagong
Justine Henin

These are just a few off the top of my head, all of whom I have seen win matches from the baseline or serving and charging the net.

Murray is much more of a thoughtful tactical player that could be the world's best pusher (counter puncher).

sh@de
10-27-2009, 08:29 PM
I think Murray is definitely capable of all-court play, but the guy doesn't do it. So, no he's not an all court player.

rosenstar
10-28-2009, 06:19 AM
My personal definition of an all-court player is one that could win playing any style of game. All pro's have the ability to be effective in all facets of the game when push comes to shove but could they win playing a game outside their comfort level. An example would be Nadal doing nothing but serve and volleying for a match.

I would not include my list of players that I would consider all court players. My list would include:

John McEnroe
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Roger Federer
Pete Samparas
Hana Mandilkova
Evonne Goolagong
Justine Henin

These are just a few off the top of my head, all of whom I have seen win matches from the baseline or serving and charging the net.

Murray is much more of a thoughtful tactical player that could be the world's best pusher (counter puncher).

I'd consider those three serve and volleyer's, not all court players...

Spider
10-28-2009, 08:16 AM
Ofcourse he is, no questions about that. Is a poll really necessary for this?

Ripper014
10-28-2009, 08:42 AM
I'd consider those three serve and volleyer's, not all court players...

I can see your point but I have watched McEnroe and Sampras in their primes win from the baseline. Though McEnroe obviously wanted to be at the net he was more than capable of winning from the baseline at his best. I may be wrong but Sampras evolved from being a baseliner with a 2-handed backhand.

Laver I didn't get to see a lot of... but at 5'-7 ish he was not your proto typical serve and volleyer... and of the matches I did see him play he definitely was not afraid to take advantage of a weak shot and go to the net, but I always thought he was more than comfortable playing from the baseline. I still have memories of seeing a topspin backhand pass down the line... and it has been over 30 years.

He was an amazing talent... I have always contended that there are amazing athletes playing sports, then occasionally someone happens onto what they were meant to do... ie. a Rod Laver or a Roger Federer.

NGM
10-28-2009, 10:45 AM
Of course he is not. He is a pure pusher. Useless thread.

Cyan
10-28-2009, 10:47 AM
No. He is a mug on clay.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-28-2009, 11:13 AM
All surface player- Hell no

All court player? Baseline Pusher... ANother no.


In short.. No he isnt

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 11:17 AM
IF Murray was a pusher, that means he has no skill. Yeah, must have no skill beating Federer 4 times on the trot and Nadal when he was at his best. Murray has no skill!

NGM
10-28-2009, 11:21 AM
IF Murray was a pusher, that means he has no skill. Yeah, must have no skill beating Federer 4 times on the trot and Nadal when he was at his best. Murray has no skill!

Who said Murray has no skill? He has amazing skill but that doesn't matter. His playing style is pushing and that why he is called a pusher.

And a pusher can play effectively sometime.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-28-2009, 11:22 AM
IF Murray was a pusher, that means he has no skill. Yeah, must have no skill beating Federer 4 times on the trot and Nadal when he was at his best. Murray has no skill!

Slam wise we saw what Fed did to Murray and before the USO. Murray has some skill, hes pretty solid but his talent his very overblown sometimes.

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 11:26 AM
Who said Murray has no skill? He has amazing skill but that doesn't matter. His playing style is pushing and that why he is called a pusher.

And a pusher can play effectively sometime.

Pusher's have no skill, they try and provoke an UE. Murray doesn't do that, He play passive tennis and turns defense into attack. Here is an example of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOB6MJvjH9U

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 11:30 AM
Slam wise we saw what Fed did to Murray and before the USO. Murray has some skill, hes pretty solid but his talent his very overblown sometimes.

H2H wise you can see that Murray leads 6-3. One match isn't very decisive.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-28-2009, 11:31 AM
H2H wise you can see that Murray leads 6-3. One match isn't very decisive.


But all the matches Murray has won vs Fed have been non slam matches. You really think Murray has what it takes to take Fed a few times at the slams where Fed is a completely different player than he is in non slam event where he usually just shows up and phones it in most of the times these days

NGM
10-28-2009, 11:34 AM
Pusher's have no skill, they try and provoke an UE. Murray doesn't do that, He play passive tennis and turns defense into attack. Here is an example of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOB6MJvjH9U

You have problems with basic definition. Skill doesn't matter here. Pushing is a playing style. He pushes everything back and waits until his opponents make UEs. He has skills and sometime can play aggressively if he wants but he chooses the other way. And that makes him a pusher.

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 11:37 AM
But all the matches Murray has won vs Fed have been non slam matches. You really think Murray has what it takes to take Fed a few times at the slams where Fed is a completely different player than he is in non slam event where he usually just shows up and phones it in most of the times these days

This "Federer is a completely different player at the slams" is very misleading. Are you implying that Federer doesn't try when he plays Murray? Are you saying that he wants a losing record to increase? That's what i'm getting from your post. You relly think one match cuts it? Cause i don't.

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 11:41 AM
You have problems with basic definition. Skill doesn't matter here. Pushing is a playing style. He pushes everything back and waits until his opponents make UEs. He has skills and sometime can play aggressively if he wants but he chooses the other way. And that makes him a pusher.

Err...reading comprehension much? I described to you what a pusher is and you have just repeated what i have said. Yet you claim i have basic problems with the definition? Massive contradiction there.

NGM
10-28-2009, 11:42 AM
H2H wise you can see that Murray leads 6-3. One match isn't very decisive.

10 years later nobody can remember anything about their non-slam matches. They only remember big matches, like 2008 US Open final. Who cares about MM events? I'm sure Sir Roger Federer doesn't.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-28-2009, 11:44 AM
This "Federer is a completely different player at the slams" is very misleading. Are you implying that Federer doesn't try when he plays Murray? Are you saying that he wants a losing record to increase? That's what i'm getting from your post. You relly think one match cuts it? Cause i don't.

I dont think Fed at non slams events these days is the same Fed that we see at slams of course. Hes dominated for the most part every aspect in tennis so its under the "been there done that" attitude. Fed is at the point in his career where he is going to put all of his effort first and foremost at the slams as opposed to non slam events. When a slam final was on the line at the USO last year, we saw what Fed did to Murray didnt we? He blitzed and never let off the gas paddle. If Murray had some big wins, Im talking slam wins over Fed than thats another story.

But at this point, Murray cant even reach a slam final to reach Fed, so thats another story in itself.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-28-2009, 11:46 AM
10 years later nobody can remember anything about their non-slam matches. They only remember big matches, like 2008 US Open final. Who cares about MM events? I'm sure Sir Roger Federer doesn't.

Exactly.. The most noteable match we will remember from Fed-Murray is Feds domination over Murray in his first slam final. Murray still needs to prove not only can he reach another slam final but also prove he can get slam wins over Roger to prove people wrong.

So far Murray has just been that "solid 3 set tournament" type of player. But when he is going to to turn it on at the slams and grab one at least? It has happened yet

NGM
10-28-2009, 11:49 AM
Err...reading comprehension much? I described to you what a pusher is and you have just repeated what i have said. Yet you claim i have basic problems with the definition? Massive contradiction there.

What?
I give up. Whatever you want. Murray is a pusher no more no less.

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 11:54 AM
I dont think Fed at non slams events these days is the same Fed that we see at slams of course. Hes dominated for the most part every aspect in tennis so its under the "been there done that" attitude. Fed is at the point in his career where he is going to put all of his effort first and foremost at the slams as opposed to non slam events. When a slam final was on the line at the USO last year, we saw what Fed did to Murray didnt we? He blitzed and never let off the gas paddle. If Murray had some big wins, Im talking slam wins over Fed than thats another story.

But at this point, Murray cant even reach a slam final to reach Fed, so thats another story in itself.

Again, what you are saying makes no sense. "been there done that" is an awful excuse. You are just implying that he doesn't care whether he loses to Murray on a regular basis. Honestly, no top pro acts like that. They want to win all the time. Desire to win is what has made champions who they are. You've lost me on all levels.

Murray has only played Fed once in a slam, and therefore using that one match to back up your case is far from plausible. All these hypothesis mean nothing, what is a fact however is that Murray leads there H2H 6-3.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-28-2009, 11:58 AM
Again, what you are saying makes no sense. "been there done that" is an awful excuse. You are just implying that he doesn't care whether he loses to Murray on a regular basis. Honestly, no top pro acts like that. They want to win all the time. Desire to win is what has made champions who they are. You've lost me on all levels.

Murray has only played Fed once in a slam, and therefore using that one match to back up your case is far from plausible. All these hypothesis mean nothing, what is a fact however is that Murray leads there H2H 6-3.

Its not to say Fed doesnt care if he loses to Murray or another player at a non slam event.. But yourself in Fed's shoes. After you have won the career slams, got the slam record, returned to number 1 in the world, have won just about every tournament in tennis.. What would youre main priority be? Where would your main focus? Probably trying to achieve something you havent achieved yet. Like a Davis Cup perhaps or just loading up on the slam count and trying to put that out of reach. Fed 08-09 is not the same Fed as Fed 04-06. THats why you have seen the results you have. Fed didnt win a tournament up until almost the damn near middle of the year.. Yet he was still reaching slam final after slam final all year. I think this kind of shows where Fed is at in his career. Not trying to make excuses. But its just how things are

All-rounder
10-28-2009, 12:13 PM
maximo??????

Ripper014
10-28-2009, 01:38 PM
IF Murray was a pusher, that means he has no skill. Yeah, must have no skill beating Federer 4 times on the trot and Nadal when he was at his best. Murray has no skill!


Seems you are the only one here stating that a pusher has no skill, I have always contended that pushers have no FRIENDS... they do have a houseful of trophies.

Pushers are the most dangerous players out there... when these types of players compete at an equal level of skill against an aggressive player, the aggressive player had better play well, otherwise the pusher will just grind the aggressive player into the court.

If there has been one player that I never wanted to see on the other side of the net... it was a topspinning left-handed pusher, someone that forced me to play a higher risk game than I was comfortable with. It is hard to out push a pusher... and playing into their game is exactly what a pusher wants.

I agree with most of those here... Andy Murray is a world class pusher... making him as dangerous a player as you can find on the tour.