PDA

View Full Version : Interesting article suggesting Murray's GS woes are NOT due to a weak mind


passive_aggressive
12-29-2011, 12:44 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1001405-andy-murrays-problem-mental-or-physical

Basically he has no killer shot.

Low percentage 1st serve, a 2nd serve that actually gives his opponent an advantageous start to the rally (seriously, what a beyond awful 2nd serve). A notoriously un-natural forehand which can't go down the line, tries to hit a lot of spin cross-court like Nadal but nowhere near as effectively.

Backhand is ok, but nothing on Djokovic's.

Volleys are ok, but who volleys today? And if you do, you go in behind insane approach shots, which Murray can't do.

Movement is a step behind Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, but I guess he is bigger than them. Mind you his extra size does not translate to a better serve, so he would be better off being smaller and more mobile.

You add up all these weaknesses and is it any wonder why Murray can't perform at the last stage of slams? Even if he had the mental toughness of a non-Djokovic weakened prime Nadal, those weaknesses are too big a deficit to recover from.

The article suggests Murray would have better luck if he developed a killer shot. But guess, what, if he had a killer shot it would be evident from the first day he picked up a racket. Killer shots can't be learned. That's why some players are more, y'know, talented?

All in all, the 'mental' aspect of tennis is often over-played, especially with regards to Murray.

Players should take a leaf out of Nadal's book - perform the same tactics over and over again on every single point, against every single opponent, in every single occasion. Like a robot. That takes any intangible out of the situation and makes for winning tennis.

tennis_pro
12-29-2011, 01:00 PM
good point, got 1 question tho

If Murray doesn't have the weapons why does he keep losing to the top 3 in big matches but can actually take them out in lesser tournaments like MS, Federer obviously doesn't care as much for MS as he does for slams but Nadal and Djokovic? They're both still young enough to care for every tournament they play in yet Murray beats them. There MUST be something mental with him...along with the points you mentioned

NamRanger
12-29-2011, 01:18 PM
Murray can construct points better than anyone on the tour, better than both Nadal and Djokovic. The reason why they win is because they are abit physically more talented than he is. They are slightly faster, slightly stronger, giving them the edge.


Although he has no big weapon, he also has no significant weakness outside of his 2nd serve. His problem is that he expends too much energy before he gets into the later stages of a slam, along with his mental weakness.

SLD76
12-29-2011, 01:21 PM
Murray can construct points better than anyone on the tour, better than both Nadal and Djokovic. The reason why they win is because they are abit physically more talented than he is. They are slightly faster, slightly stronger, giving them the edge.


Although he has no big weapon, he also has no significant weakness outside of his 2nd serve. His problem is that he expends too much energy before he gets into the later stages of a slam, along with his mental weakness.

/thread.

that is all.

Hitman
12-29-2011, 01:22 PM
"I always thought that the mind was the most advanced weapon..." Rambo.

"Times change..." Murdoch.

"For some people..." Rambo.

MajinX
12-29-2011, 01:24 PM
lol you dont compare shots to the best shot on tour and say its not as good therefore its a weakness. Murrays backhand is amazing, his forehand while not the best is a very consistent shot, and yes he can go down the line and hit it hard at times, its more because his playing style does not involve as much hard hitting as opposed to him not being able to hit such a shot.

my point is that this article or watever is basicly just nick picking at little points murray could work on, im not saying its all bs but its just pointing out possible areas to improve and saying thats why he isnt winning... well no ****, anyone can say someone can do this better and will have better success if he does. its being able to find a solution thats the hard part.

namelessone
12-29-2011, 01:27 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1001405-andy-murrays-problem-mental-or-physical

Basically he has no killer shot.

Low percentage 1st serve, a 2nd serve that actually gives his opponent an advantageous start to the rally (seriously, what a beyond awful 2nd serve). A notoriously un-natural forehand which can't go down the line, tries to hit a lot of spin cross-court like Nadal but nowhere near as effectively.

Backhand is ok, but nothing on Djokovic's.

Volleys are ok, but who volleys today? And if you do, you go in behind insane approach shots, which Murray can't do.

Movement is a step behind Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, but I guess he is bigger than them. Mind you his extra size does not translate to a better serve, so he would be better off being smaller and more mobile.

You add up all these weaknesses and is it any wonder why Murray can't perform at the last stage of slams? Even if he had the mental toughness of a non-Djokovic weakened prime Nadal, those weaknesses are too big a deficit to recover from.

The article suggests Murray would have better luck if he developed a killer shot. But guess, what, if he had a killer shot it would be evident from the first day he picked up a racket. Killer shots can't be learned. That's why some players are more, y'know, talented?

All in all, the 'mental' aspect of tennis is often over-played, especially with regards to Murray.

Players should take a leaf out of Nadal's book - perform the same tactics over and over again on every single point, against every single opponent, in every single occasion. Like a robot. That takes any intangible out of the situation and makes for winning tennis.

Article from bleacherreport?

LAWL.

mattennis
12-29-2011, 01:46 PM
His backhand is almost as good as the best one (i.e. Djokovic).

His forehand is effective (though clearly not in the level of Federer, Nadal or Djokovic).

His first serve is great, but inconsistent (and that is a problem).

His second serve is ordinary.

His movement on hard court is as good as the best ones (Djokovic, Nadal and Federer).

He has the game to beat Nadal, Federer or Djokovic in a GS Final (not always, but to be able to beat them sometimes) because he has defeated them many times in M-1000 tournaments.

I think that two things get in his way: nerves and excess energy wasted in previous rounds (in GS tournaments) against lesser opponents.

Bobby Jr
12-29-2011, 02:08 PM
Murray can construct points better than anyone on the tour, better than both Nadal and Djokovic. The reason why they win is because they are abit physically more talented than he is. They are slightly faster, slightly stronger, giving them the edge.


Although he has no big weapon, he also has no significant weakness outside of his 2nd serve. His problem is that he expends too much energy before he gets into the later stages of a slam, along with his mental weakness.
/thread.

Although I'd add he does have two particular weaknesses outside his 2nd serve:
- His ad-court 1st serve is generally a joke. How they haven't IDed this and addressed it is beyond me. Unless he's playing a bunny it's ineffective to boot.
- On his forehand he hits crosscourt whenever he's on the move. This is a huge weakness imo. When all of your opponents know where you're going to hit the ball on what should be the stronger wing it's a weakness. He seemed to have added down the line in the Asian tournaments finally but when he was moving he just resorted back to the cc.

Bobby Jr
12-29-2011, 02:09 PM
*Rambo quotes*
Col. Troutman: "how you gonna live Murray?

Murray: "Day by day.." :lol: :lol:

Hitman
12-29-2011, 02:24 PM
Col. Troutman: "how you gonna live Murray?

Murray: "Day by day.." :lol: :lol:

Petchy as Col Troutman - "I've come to take my boy out"

ATP suits - "Your boy?"

Petchy - "I trained him, I recruited him...I guess that makes him mine."

OddJack
12-29-2011, 02:26 PM
interesting article ...but I beleive its mental.

He can, and has, play offense.

jaggy
12-29-2011, 02:52 PM
I think the lack of a big shot to end points quickly causes mental fatigue, physically he is up there.

Mainad
12-29-2011, 03:37 PM
Yep, you could really see how weaponless Murray was when he bagelled Nadal in Tokyo a couple of months back. No weapons at all! :rolleyes:

And just how do you manage to win 21 titles including 8 Masters with no weapons?? And let's cut the crap about the top 3 not bothering to play their best tennis in sub-Slam tournies. If that was the case, how come more players down the rankings haven't managed to beat them in Masters events? How come Soderling and Berdych and Tsonga and Del Potro haven't managed to win more than one Masters each (and in Delpo's case, none)? I doubt the writer of this article would say that any of those players are weaponless!

The amount of crap talked about Murray and his game is just breathtaking. I'm not at all saying he doesn't have his faults. His game plan doesn't always work properly and he clearly doesn't get the balance between offence and defence quite right often enough on the really big occasions. But that's his mental preparation which we all know is a bit suspect vis a vis the top 3 and especially in Slams. But to try and argue that he doesn't have any weapons is just ridiculous, biased nonsense as anyone with a truly fair and objective view of the guy and his tennis can only acknowledge!

Homeboy Hotel
12-29-2011, 03:41 PM
Yep, you could really see how weaponless Murray was when he bagelled Nadal in Tokyo a couple of months back. No weapons at all! :rolleyes:

And just how do you manage to win 21 titles including 8 Masters with no weapons?? And let's cut the crap about the top 3 not bothering to play their best tennis in sub-Slam tournies. If that was the case, how come more players down the rankings haven't managed to beat them in Masters events? How come Soderling and Berdych and Tsonga and Del Potro haven't managed to win more than one Masters each (and in Delpo's case, none)? I doubt the writer of this article would say that any of those players are weaponless!

The amount of crap talked about Murray and his game is just breathtaking. I'm not at all saying he doesn't have his faults. His game plan doesn't always work properly and he clearly doesn't get the balance between offence and defence quite right often enough on the really big occasions. But that's his mental preparation which we all know is a bit suspect vis a vis the top 3 and especially in Slams. But to try and argue that he doesn't have any weapons is just ridiculous, biased nonsense as anyone with a truly fair and objective view of the guy and his tennis can only acknowledge!

Can someone give this guy a standing ovation please? Couldn't of put it better.

Bobby Jr
12-29-2011, 04:42 PM
Petchy as Col Troutman - "I've come to take my boy out"

ATP suits - "Your boy?"

Petchy - "I trained him, I recruited him...I guess that makes him mine."
Gold :lol:

nikdom
12-29-2011, 04:53 PM
I only agree with the serve and forehand part.

To win a GS, you need to win some cheap points on serve and be able to finish with one killer shot.

Fredrik
12-29-2011, 05:04 PM
Can someone give this guy a standing ovation please? Couldn't of put it better.

My eyes!!!

(10 have´s)

West Coast Ace
12-29-2011, 05:11 PM
Article from bleacherreport?
Lost me there too!

Another blog site that got some traction - like SportsByBrooks - with pictures of hot chicks interspersed with sports 'news'. They got rid of the girls and tried to go legit - but they're just guys behind a computer.

Murray can hit winners. It is mental. Why else can he beat these guys at 1000 events but not majors? And don't say because they're 2 out of 3 - if he didn't have weapons he wouldn't win the shorter matches either. If you've watched his performances in the Major finals, it's obvious he can't bring his best to the court.

passive_aggressive
12-30-2011, 03:16 PM
Lost me there too!

Another blog site that got some traction - like SportsByBrooks - with pictures of hot chicks interspersed with sports 'news'. They got rid of the girls and tried to go legit - but they're just guys behind a computer.

Murray can hit winners. It is mental. Why else can he beat these guys at 1000 events but not majors? And don't say because they're 2 out of 3 - if he didn't have weapons he wouldn't win the shorter matches either. If you've watched his performances in the Major finals, it's obvious he can't bring his best to the court.

Why does Wozniacki mop up the Masters, then?

The best players hardly put any effort into preparing for and playing in the Masters. They know that a win or a loss is not going to affect their legacy one way or the other. ONLY Grand Slams affect your legacy. No-one even gives a hoot about the Olympics.

Yet they are still good enough to win most of these tournaments without really even trying to win them at all.

West Coast Ace
12-30-2011, 03:41 PM
Why does Wozniacki mop up the Masters, then?I'll patiently wait for you to return what some Betty's problem has to do with Murray.


The best players hardly put any effort into preparing for and playing in the Masters...Yet they are still good enough to win most of these tournaments without really even trying to win them at all.This is event more ridiculous. Top guys 'don't try' at Masters 1000 events? So how did Rafa and Roger and Novak (and Agassi in his day) win so many? No one showed up?

JayChu
12-30-2011, 04:15 PM
ONLY Grand Slams affect your legacy. No-one even gives a hoot about the Olympics.


If no one gives a hoot about the Olympics, then why are all the top players trying to win Olympic gold?

Homeboy Hotel
12-30-2011, 04:24 PM
I noticed people are getting wound up and are actually taking this ex-banned troll seriously.


tennis_fan_185, anyone?

West Coast Ace
12-30-2011, 04:38 PM
I noticed people are getting wound up and are actually taking this ex-banned troll seriously.


tennis_fan_185, anyone?Thanks for the heads up.