Article: Journalist Blasts Andy Murray says he lacks mental toughness against top 3

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Amelie Mauresmo, Jan 28, 2013.

  1. Amelie Mauresmo

    Amelie Mauresmo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,646
    Column: Andy Murray risks becoming one-hit wonder

    By By JOHN LEICESTER, AP Sports Columnist – 1 day ago
    Andy Murray looks like a one-hit wonder.
    In the Australian Open final, Murray had Novak Djokovic almost dangling on the end of a hook, facing three break points in what proved to be a momentum-shifting game early in the second set.
    But he couldn't reel in the Serb, who now has six major titles and the top of men's tennis to himself with age slowly blunting Roger Federer's abilities and Rafael Nadal's future clouded by creaky knees.

    This was Murray's chance to capitalize on his breakthrough year in 2012, when he won his first major title and Olympic gold.
    Had Murray won again Sunday, Britons could have joked that major titles for British men are like London buses: you wait ages for one and then two come along in quick succession.
    Murray ruined the punch line.

    His 7-6 (2),6-7 (3), 3-6, 2-6 loss in Melbourne to Djokovic was gritty but felt like a step back not a step forward. At this stage of his career, Murray needs to be regularly winning major finals, not just reaching them, if he wants to be remembered for more than just one exceptional year in 2012.
    That Murray allowed a feather falling onto the court to throw off his serve in the second set tiebreaker and squandered match-changing break points made one wonder whether his curse is that he has the physical tools to be a great tennis player but not the mind.

    Backing up that argument is Murray's now near-dismal record in major finals: played six, won just one — against Djokovic at the U.S. Open last September.
    That was the first major for a British man since Fred Perry in 1936. It was historic but not, in itself, an answer to the question of whether Murray is simply a very good player or has the makings of a great one.
    A victory for Murray on Sunday to go with his U.S. Open crown and his Olympic gold won at home last August would have looked like a power shift at the top of men's tennis, especially since Murray beat Federer for the first time in four attempts at a major to reach Sunday's final.

    Instead, the loss to Djokovic made Murray's 2012 wins look more like exceptions than the possible beginnings of a new rule.
    Still, the successes of 2012 and a whole year of coaching and confidence boosting from Ivan Lendl have clearly made a startling difference.
    Unlike the pre-Lendl Murray, the new Murray doesn't so often look as if he swallowed a cocktail of vinegar and lemon juice. He still grimaces and mutters to himself and yells at his entourage when shots go awry. But he has ditched the loser's body language and hang-dog look that too often used make his defeats seem like self-fulfilling prophecies.

    Still, Murray's positive outlook and the more aggressive, take-it-to-the-opponent shot-making that flows from it weren't enough to beat Djokovic this time. The Serb's wells of confidence and resolve seem deeper than anyone's in tennis with the possible exception of Nadal.

    The Australian final showed that physically, Djokovic and Murray are evenly matched, powerful on both the backhand and forehand sides, with delicate control, supreme fitness and rubber-ball quickness around the court.
    But until Murray can consistently go toe-to-toe with Djokovic's mental toughness, their rivalry won't feel as titanic as clashes between Djokovic and Nadal or Federer and Nadal when they are at their best.
    Djokovic is exuberant, a joker apt to wear a blonde wig or Darth Vader mask onto court. Murray is so understated he said the most enjoyable part of winning the U.S. Open was getting back to his hotel room and "spending a bit of time on my own."

    But those differences are cosmetic. The difference that counted most on Sunday was killer instinct. Djokovic had it. Murray did not.

    Murray should have landed a crippling blow when he had Djokovic on the ropes at the end of the first set and beginning of the second.
    In his most convincing period of the match, Murray won 17 of 19 points, racing to a 4-0 lead in winning the first-set tiebreaker, holding his serve to love at the start of the second set and then putting the squeeze on Djokovic to 0-40 on his serve.

    That Murray didn't convert those break points into a 2-0, second-set lead was telling, especially given the fact that Djokovic had looked so out of sorts, annoyed with his shoes, shots and movement.
    Winning that game, alone, wouldn't have won Murray the match. But it certainly would have given him hard-to-stop momentum that might have taken his mind off the painful blister developing on his right foot.

    "At this level, it can come down to just a few points here or there. My probably biggest chance was at the beginning of the second set; (I) didn't quite get it. When Novak had his chance at the end of the third, he got his," Murray said.

    Another turning point was Murray's loss of concentration at 2-2 in the second tiebreaker. Interrupting his service action because a white feather was floating onto the court, then catching it and getting rid of it only to serve a double-fault suggested that Murray still lets too many outside influences interfere with his focus.

    "It just caught my eye before I served. I thought it was a good idea to move it," Murray said. "Maybe it wasn't because I obviously double-faulted."
    So Murray remains a work in progress, not the finished product. Lendl still has work to do.

    Lendl understands Murray because, like the Scot, he lost his first four major finals before winning his fifth — the 1984 French Open. Lendl's jagged career path of sustained disappointment followed by eventual long-term success should again offer hope to Murray. After his 1984 breakthrough, Lendl lost his sixth major final, as Murray has now done, and his seventh, too. But the career record Lendl retired with — eight titles from 19 major finals — is one

    Murray would doubtless give his hind teeth for. A moral of Lendl's story is try and then try again, making him the perfect coach to extricate Murray from the trough of this latest defeat.
    Together, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray form a Fab Four who have separated themselves from the rest of the men's field with the sustained excellence of their play.
    But Murray remains the group's Ringo Starr — still bringing up the rear. He needs more hits of his own for that to change.
    John Leicester is an international sports columnist for The Associated Press.

    Write to him at jleicester(at)ap.org or follow him at

    http://twitter.com/johnleicester
    Copyright © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
     
    #1
  2. bluetrain4

    bluetrain4 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    8,833
    I'm not a big Murray fan, but even to me, the article seems harsh, short-sighted, and snippy.
     
    #2
  3. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,967
    Location:
    New York
    I would like to see that journalist facing Djoko on the AO court. Not that easy maybe. Murray was clutch in the first set. He had one lapse during the 2nd set TB sure but that can happen to anyone. By the same token, one could easily say that Djoko botched the 1st set TB and that he shouldn't have. It's a match. It's long. The 2 opponents are about the same level. Lapses are bound to happen. I also think his blisters were bothering him more and more in the last set (hence the lopsided score). Personally, I didn't see any significant choking happening in this match.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
    #3
  4. Amelie Mauresmo

    Amelie Mauresmo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,646
    The article is just stating the facts unlike the Murray fanboys on this website. I loved the article the journalist is objective and his argument is cogent. Something is missing with Andy Murray and it is clearly mental he doesn't have the self confidence. Getting upset about a feather and then double faulting Murray lacks the focus to be a great champion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
    #4
  5. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,579
    :) LOL

    This article plays to your prejudices. That's why you like it.

    Facts may not be defined as opinions that you agree with.

    Murray is a slam champion - that's the only fact you need to get your head round. It simply doesn't doesn't matter whether or not you think he is a great champion.




    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
    #5
  6. JRAJ1988

    JRAJ1988 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,830
    Location:
    Cornwall (UK)
    Amelie Mauresmo what is your problem with Murray? You've been after him since he lost yesterday.
     
    #6
  7. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    Poor Murray and his long suffering fans. I mean I don't love the guy but the media can be very cruel. They lambasted him for never being able to win a slam and now that he's won one they're calling him a one-hit wonder. I actually feel a little sorry for the guy.:(

    I don't think any player has followed up their first major win with a win at the next GS. High expectations if you ask me.
     
    #7
  8. Amelie Mauresmo

    Amelie Mauresmo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,646
    The article is correct Murray's problem is mental he lacks focus. Getting upset about a feather on the court and then double faulting that's really lame. Murray gets a lot of hype by the English language media in the western world because they DESPERATE to have on their own in the elite group. Murray's slam results prove he isn't worthy. Murray's never reached number one and he only has ONE GRAND SLAM TITLE. 1-5 in slam finals is a horrible statistic and shows Murray lacks mental toughness.


    just don't think he deserves to be put in the same group as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Murray so far has only gotten a lot of hype. This article points out the problem with Murray isn't his talent but the question is he content winning one slam? Is Murray going to maximize his potential? I doubt Murray is going to win six slams like Djokovic I don't think he has it in him.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
    #8
  9. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,579
    Excellent point. Murray is getting bashed for not doing something that's never been done in the open era!

    In fact, by getting to the final, Murray has done better than every previous 1st time slam winner in the immediate next slam.
     
    #9
  10. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328
    He does. Especially against Nadal.... well he does have mental issues vs. Nole to but not as severe

    Hes turn it around a bit vs. Roger.. But Rog being 31 years old helps.

    I thought he was over that stage of his career as well after finally winning his first slam.

    But generally thats how it goes.. You can't TEACH mental toughness. 9 times out of 10, once a head case always a head case.. Theres a few exceptions but they are few and far between
     
    #10
  11. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,159
    Location:
    Toronto
    Dumb article....how did he beat Federer at Olympics, US Open and Novak in US Open?
     
    #11
  12. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    Djokovic showed Nadal's mental weaknesses too by slapping him around seven times in a row.

    It's not just Murray.
     
    #12
  13. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,328
    Yea but Nadal has won the last 3 matches they have played (on clay but still).. He also had that 4-2 lead in the 5th at the AO (Nole's best surface). And leads the h2h
     
    #13
  14. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    Yes, I know. :)


    Just pointing out that this guy has something against Murray.

    Luckily he doesn't sign Murray's checks.
     
    #14
  15. Warmaster

    Warmaster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    3,803
    It's a weak journalism era.
     
    #15
  16. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    Best line ever!:) (ok maybe not ever but it's good)
     
    #16
  17. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Well, you think wrong, off the top of my head, Connors did it, and I suspect that he wasn't the only one who did so.
     
    #17
  18. Clay lover

    Clay lover Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,911
    Well as much as I like Murray, I still think some writers are hyping him up without noticing . I disagree that Murray is on par talent wise with djoko. At his best he is a solid all around player, but lacks that wow factor most other greats generate. His backhand is rock solid, but not as intimidating as Safins or even Agassi's, nor is it as crafty as Nalby's. His forehand is decent but not nearly as good as the big 3s. His other qualities matches up well but this era is a groundstroke dominated era. Djokovic on the other hand has that innate talent to redirect pace and gives you that scary ball machine impression when he's on. You Can tell who's going to be more successful basically just by looking at their games.
     
    #18
  19. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,579
    No he didn't. Connors won the next slam that he played after winning his first. He didn't win the next slam that was played after winning his first.

    Until Murray beat Roger, no 1st time slam winner had got past the semis at the next slam.
     
    #19
  20. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    You wanna put money on that?

    I said: "I don't think any player has followed up their first major win with a win at the next GS."

    He won the Australian Open in 1974 and then Wimbledon, not the French Open, which was the next slam. So off the top of your head I'd say you're incorrect. It doesn't count if he didn't play the French. Anyone can skip their least favourite surface.
     
    #20
  21. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    13,265
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    To be perfectly honest, I read this article thinking it was going to be yet another really nasty hatchet job given who had posted it.

    But I honestly don't think it was as bad as I thought it was going to be. The writer made some good points. Murray WAS disappointingly un-clutch on some of the crucial points. He really should have converted one of those break points he had in the 2nd set (he had several golden opportunities to do so given the way Novak was playing up to that point) and gone on to win it as he was holding serve quite well and, yes, he really shouldn't have let that stupid feather distract him when serving at a crucial point in the 2nd set breaker, double-faulting as a result and handing the 2nd set to Djokovic. He admitted as much himself. A 2 set lead would have given him such great momentum and it was agonisingly within his grasp!

    I'm sure his blistered foot played its part as he definitely stopped moving as well at the start of the 3rd set. I guess he must have picked it up from the semi against Fed but that does call into question his fitness and readiness to play back to back 5 set matches which is really surprising given how he came through 3 tough matches in a row to win the US Open!

    I have to agree with the writer that I think Murray is still a work in progress. The USO win does not seem to have completely silenced his self-doubts and that too is really surprising. Who would have thought that?

    I guess Murray is a bit like what Winston Churchill once described Russia ie. a riddle rapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

    Far from being too arrogant and too cocky as some of his critics on here seem to think, it seems to me that he is not arrogant and cocky enough! He still needs to have more self-belief and confidence. His game is all there. It has been for ages. He just needs to keep playing it when up against the very best on the biggest occasions.
     
    #21
  22. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    First of all, I forgot that the Aussie Open has been the first Slam, the LAST Slam, and is now the first one. I thought it was the last in 1974, not the case. But, are you really saying, with a straight face, that a player who won his first Slam, the AO, was not permitted to play the French, and won Wimbledon(not to mention, the US Open) buttresses your argument? ROTLMAO!!!!!


    Besides, what about Don Budge?:confused:
     
    #22
  23. Warmaster

    Warmaster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    3,803
    To be fair to Connors, he wasn't allowed to play the FO in 1974. And the AO was his least favourite major (it wasn't that important in the 70's).
     
    #23
  24. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Uh, he didn't "skip" anything, see my previous post. Nice try...
     
    #24
  25. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,245
    There will always be hype around Murray but usually it's justified. He broke the duck last year. So what if he didn't win the next immediate slam. He's made 3 slam finals in a row for heaven's sakes. How would anyone know that he's not gonna win another this year?
     
    #25
  26. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    Whatever. My statement stands, which is that no player (at least in the Open era) has followed up their first GS title with a title at the next slam. Asterisks aside! Ok? How's that?

    The point I was making is that it's very hard to do and anyone who expected Murray to do it was asking a little much.
     
    #26
  27. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    13,265
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    NO player in the Open Era has gone on to win the next scheduled Slam after winning their first. In fact NO player has even gone on to make the FINAL of the next scheduled Slam after winning their first. I mistakenly thought Connors and a few others had at least done that but I was proved wrong. Murray is the only one to do it!
     
    #27
  28. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    I guess I'm just not as old as you so I didn't know the circumstances. If someone is banned from a tournament that's not my fault now is it? but I stand by my post. Nice try old fart.
     
    #28
  29. TheF1Bob

    TheF1Bob Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,473
    Location:
    NON-Pigeon City
    Nice to see journalism which makes sense for once.

    Kudos.
     
    #29
  30. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Just because you're ignorant of something has no relevance to ANYTHING. You tried to slither by on a technicality, and were wrong on your statement, since I notice you carefully avoided addressing Budge-other than to hastily amend your statement to the Open era, which you did NOT state initially. You're so big on stats, why don't you tell us how many players lost 17 of the first 22 sets in Grand Slam single finals they played in?
     
    #30
  31. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    13,265
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    There is no question that Murray is as talented as Djokovic. He even has a greater range of shots at his disposal. Where he suffers by comparison is in mental strength. Murray too often loses focus at crucial points of the match. Djokovic used to have similar mental problems but successfully overcame them by the start of his phenomenal 2011 season. Murray's game is all there and is is more than adequate for beating the big 3 as he has proved time and time again. He just needs to keep utilising it more and be more self-confident and assertive about doing so.
     
    #31
  32. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    Listen I don't know what your problem is but what I said was true. No one counts records before the Open era when speaking about players today. You've just got something rammed firmly up your arse and are pissed off because you were wrong so why don't you just go back to Wikipedia and memorize some more stats.

    Did Connors or did he not follow up his first GS title with a title at the French Open, which was the next slam? Well?

    so don't call me ignorant!!
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
    #32
  33. The Bawss

    The Bawss Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Lyon, France.
    Who cares about The Connors story. The "record" is so trivial and insignificant I don't understand where the friction is stemming from? The fact that Murray possesses the lowest win/loss percentage in slam finals of any slam winner is a much more noteworthy (and telling for the Mards) record.
     
    #33
  34. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    No, it wasn't true-"No one counts records before the Open era when speaking about players today." Really? I'm sure that will come as great surprise to Laver and the family of Don Budge that they won one and zero Grand Slams, respectively. Who died and made YOU Minister of What Records Will and Will NOT Be Counted? Connors won his first Slam, then won the next Slam that he was allowed to participate in, no matter HOW great you are, you can't win if they don't let ya play; see how that works? But, you wanna slide by on a technicality. Well, that works two ways: did Budge follow up his first Slam win with a win at the next scheduled Slam, or did he NOT? He did, and YOU WERE WRONG. And, saying that somebody is ignorant of something is NOT the same as saying that the person himself is ignorant, and, you'd realize that, if you weren't ignorant....ooops! My bad.

    Still waiting for that list of players who lost 15 of the first 22 sets they played in Grand Slam Finals. That stat screams a lot of things, but "clutch" isn't one of them, ROTLMAO!!!!
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
    #34
  35. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    The part about Rat Boy's pathetic Slam finals record, I'm in full agreement, but, if a player plays in 3 Slams in a year, wins them, and is banned from playing in the 4th one, I'm gonna beg to differ about claiming it wasn't important.
     
    #35
  36. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    so yes, you agree with me that Connors didn't do it. Thank you.:twisted:
     
    #36
  37. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Let's face it, Murray got lucky winning the USO. Berdych won him the title.
     
    #37
  38. The Bawss

    The Bawss Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Lyon, France.
    I meant that the fact that Murray is the only person to have followed up his maiden slam win with a final is petty and trivial at best because of cases like Connors who, as you know, was robbed of the opportunity of holding this particular record.
     
    #38
  39. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    13,265
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    Gosh, that was very generous of Berdych. But how come he didn't win the title himself? :confused:
     
    #39
  40. The Bawss

    The Bawss Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Lyon, France.
    The first sentence is correct, the second is untrue. Murray won because of the zephyr in flushing meadows that night.
     
    #40
  41. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    13,265
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    Well, Connors aside, why didn't anybody else manage to do it in the Open Era?
     
    #41
  42. SempreSami

    SempreSami Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,627
    Location:
    UK
    He also won Wimbledon for Nads in 2010. ;)
     
    #42
  43. Mainad

    Mainad G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    13,265
    Location:
    Manchester, UK.
    Do you think he's on commission? ;)
     
    #43
  44. The Bawss

    The Bawss Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,829
    Location:
    Lyon, France.
    Because the "record" is so insignificant that nobody attempts to set/break it.
     
    #44
  45. SempreSami

    SempreSami Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,627
    Location:
    UK
    Likelihood is they don't know/care about records like forumites.
     
    #45
  46. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    Connors didn't do it. In fact he never made it past the SF of the French Open. Why someone would think that just because he didn't play a tournament he probably would have won it is puzzling.
     
    #46
  47. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    why would anyone not try to win their second GS title? That makes no sense.

    What I suspect is there is so much pressure on a player who has finally broken through and won their first major that it is a daunting task.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
    #47
  48. dafinch

    dafinch Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Yup. Many years from now, it will be apparent that Fur Ball was to the 2012 US Open as Michael Chang was to the 1989 French Open.
     
    #48
  49. Antonio Puente

    Antonio Puente Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Buenavista
    It's better than being a no-hit wonder.
     
    #49
  50. always_crosscourt

    always_crosscourt Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    496
    You guys don't realize that by saying Murray has 'mental' issues, you are unknowingly complementing him by suggesting that he has the game/talent to compete with the best, but his head is his weakness.

    I take a different approach.

    I think Murray's mental strength is the only thing that offsets his blatant lack of talent compared to the Big Three, and, in fact, he is much less talented than most all of the Top Thirty. He is just lucky that the rest of the Top Thirty are choking headcases, whereas he is an untalented workman with opportunistic tendencies, a callous killing instinct, and a good work ethic.

    If Murray was not as mentally tough as he is, he would get absolutely pulverized by the Big Three every time he met them on any stage, because his game and level of talent is a good whole three tiers below them.

    in other words, Murray's 'mental' problems are the least of his worries. He simply does not have the talent to be a great tennis player.

    If you say Murray has mental problems, you give his fans hope that one day he will sort them out and realize his true potential. If you simply say he lacks talent in the first place, it is much bleaker because it means that nothing he does will ever make him a better player.
     
    #50

Share This Page