How much potential does Andy Murray have?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by 2slik, Dec 6, 2009.

  1. 2slik

    2slik Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    504
    I remember watching him against Roddick in Doha earlier this year and he was amazing. I thought he had a chance of winning the AO, French and Wimbledon if he kept playing smart tennis like he played here. I think the season unravelled for him at the SF loss to Roddick at wimbledon where i don't believe he clicked into that next gear you need to reach at tournaments like this. He is clearly a better player then Henman was and can also volley well. I think if he served and volleyed on his own serve he would have a better winning percentage.
     
    #1
  2. Tsonga#1fan

    Tsonga#1fan Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    540
    Location:
    East Coast USA, Puerto Rico
    I think we have already seen the best of Murray. It will just be more of the same for a few more years.
     
    #2
  3. vanity

    vanity Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    280
    I see him winning a slam or even two next season. He will step it up and play the best tennis of his life. The AO and USO is where he's most likely to win.
     
    #3
  4. Vyse

    Vyse Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    657
    Location:
    Northern, MO
    he will win a slam. he is still very young, no worries for him despite what people on here say. he gonna get a slam
     
    #4
  5. fps

    fps Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,432
    Location:
    Brighton, England
    he needs better shot selection/ management of the many strategies available to him, he needs to be braver in the big matches, and he needs a better serve.

    everything else, he has.
     
    #5
  6. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,978
    He has potential. But lets not forget that JMDP and Djokovic have already fulllfiled their potential.

    I believed in Murray at the start of the year. He raped Roddick and Federer at the start then loses to chokestar Verdasco. He then was meant to at least get to the wimbledon Final but loses to a Roddick who lost to Murray years ago - and Murray is much better now than in 2006. Murray was then tipped to win the US open and loses to Cilic who hasn't even made a slam Quarter Final up until that point.

    I still say that Murray will probably win a slam next year. No more due to fullfilling his goal of the year - he will probably win a few slams.
     
    #6
  7. OddJack

    OddJack Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    9,603
    Location:
    South
    Ahem, vanity, if you dont mind I would like to expand this thread a lil bit.

    He kept playing smart tennis, but there is such a thing as being too smart. He's too smart for his own good. He over did his fitness for one. And, he plays tennis like a chess game. He wants to outsmart everyone everytime by playing smart tennis and it simply doesnt work. He probably would make a good chess player but even there he is more like Capablanca than Tall.
    If he does not change few things in his game he is a no slam wonder. For one he needs to change his coach. He has been taking with him a minivan of coaches and yet we saw no improvements in 09.
    Look at his second serve for goodness sake, he is #4 in the world and don't have one. Davydenko at 5'9" has a better second serve than him.
    His break up with Sears tells me he is becoming an unhappy person too, and that's in part for allowing the UK media getting into him. He got to stay away from the hype, focus and rebuild his game and he needs to do it soon.
     
    #7
  8. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,978
    He won't win 2. He didn't make a final this year so he would have to go beyond his capabilities. I'm backing him for AO.US open is a 'maybe' and Wimbledon is a 'NO WAY'.
     
    #8
  9. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,579
    I'm not sure that's strictly true. Yes, he went one round further in slams in 08 than he did in 09, but he also amde the second week of every slam for the 1st time in 09, had his best ever performances @ Wimby and RG in 09, his highest ever ranking in 09, and his most titles won in a season in 09.

    It wasn't stellar improvement, but i think it's unfair to say he flat-lined this year.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2009
    #9
  10. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    He needs to stop pushing. I doubt he'll ever win a slam
     
    #10
  11. dropshot winner

    dropshot winner Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,852
    I'm not a fan of his current defensive style, but if he keeps working on his game, attitude and strategy, 5 slams and #1 ranking are possible.
     
    #11
  12. OddJack

    OddJack Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    9,603
    Location:
    South
    Yes he won titles and didnt exactly flat lined but he did not achieve his goal which was winning a major. And..his highest ever ranking had nothing to do with him and everything to do with Nadal.
     
    #12
  13. fps

    fps Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,432
    Location:
    Brighton, England
    i saw improvements too, especially at RG, and he won a lot of tournies, which definitely counts for something.

    i wonder whether, for all the praise he's got for having so many coaches, there are too many voices in his head before the big matches, too many opinions other than his own crowding his judgement. i don't know whether the advice of a seasoned claycourter is what murray needs in his ear, for instance, when his natural instinct is to grind anyway.
     
    #13
  14. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,579
    Re point 1 - not achieveing his goal for the seaon isn't the same as not making progress; which was your original contention.

    Re your second point - true that Nadal's injury was a pre-requisite but untrue that it was nothing to do with Murray. He needed to have the required number of points to make number 2 - both things had to happen, not just Rafa's injury. If Murray had lost every match after RG and still got to number 2 then you could make that argumenent - but the fact is he Murray to make a slam semi, win an MS and make another MS semi to get to number 2.
     
    #14
  15. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,159
    Location:
    Toronto
    He best reulst is winning a hard cour masters. Nothing more than that. I rather see someone else win thatn Murray. I am a murray hater for his game but whatever works for him. Murray has no pontentil to grow in his game other than his fitness. maybe he starts voleying a bit more that ya like Aussie open 2007 against Nadal.
     
    #15
  16. mtr1

    mtr1 Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,386
    Location:
    England
    Not true. Henman was consistantly more of a threat at his best slam that Murray will be at his.
     
    #16
  17. clayman2000

    clayman2000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,849
    Problem for him is hes not a standout on any 1 surface. At the AO, Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal are all better players. At the FO, Nadal, Fed, Djoker, Del Po, Gonzo, Monfils are all superior. On grass, Nadal, Roddick, Fed are all better. At the USO its Federer, Del Po, Djokovic.

    As you can see hell never be a top 3 contender at a slam
     
    #17
  18. fps

    fps Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,432
    Location:
    Brighton, England
    Murray's already made a grand slam final and he's competitive with each of the top guys, he's a much better player than Henman was.
     
    #18
  19. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,579
    Hate away mate but even Tim Henman reckons Andy Murray is a better player than Tim Henman was.
     
    #19
  20. vanity

    vanity Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    280
    Quite amusing. i like Henman, but no way is he greater than Murray. He's achieved more than Henman has in his career.
     
    #20
  21. anointedone

    anointedone Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,655
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Your accessment is pretty good. Then again he often is a better player than Djokovic and Del Potro in non slam hard court events so I understand people thinking why cant he be in the hard court slams. Obviously Federer is a different animal in the slams and not even trying to max out in the other events anymore, so he get a pass.
     
    #21
  22. jazzyfunkybluesy

    jazzyfunkybluesy Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,707
    Potential is overrated. Show me some results then we can talk.
     
    #22
  23. mtr1

    mtr1 Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,386
    Location:
    England
    I've just read what I wrote and I come across as stupid so I'll try again. I'm not saying Henman is "greater" that Murray, I just don't think Murray is miles better that Henman. I'm sure Murray will win 1-2 hard court slams, but I prefer Henman's game, and his personality, as I'm sure most people do.
     
    #23
  24. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    15,773
    Location:
    VA Beach
    Henman had zero personality in his playing days. Good on commentary from what I hear, but in his playing days he was Sampras in every way w/ the exception of slams - that includes the lack of personality.
     
    #24
  25. All-rounder

    All-rounder Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    6,301
    Location:
    Transitional era
    He was only a threat on grass courts
     
    #25
  26. sosa09

    sosa09 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Tucumán
    i think he has the potential , to win all the grand slams except roland garros
     
    #26
  27. jaggy

    jaggy G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    12,716
    Location:
    Carrboro, NC
    If he can win faster points he could win a slam but 2 weeks of his current style make it much tougher
     
    #27
  28. surfvland

    surfvland Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    540
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    Incredible player, but he may never win a major, depending on his longevity, and the competition.
     
    #28
  29. Spider

    Spider Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    UK
    Incredible talent. After Federer, he is the most talented player of this decade. Many of us thought he could win slam titles this year. However, at the right time, Murray wasn't fit enough (which is his completely his fault only). Having wrist injury and being sick at both USO and AO respectively, the slams where he is one of the biggest threats, didn't help his cause this year.

    I think he should do well in 2010. He is too talented to go away without slam titles. Most of us have great hopes from him.
     
    #29
  30. Marshredder

    Marshredder Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    London, UK
    Look, I know your from the UK, and so supporting him is compulsary, but lets not throw around phrases like "greatest of the decade" or anything, ok?

    In the 00's, there were loads of better players. Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal etc...
     
    #30
  31. Spider

    Spider Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    UK
    Let me correct my statement, I meant players playing at their primes, in this decade. I would put Murray above all players except Federer. I wouldn't include Sampras and Agassi as this generation's players since their primes were in the 90's and I already put Murray below Federer, so I don't know what problem you have?
     
    #31
  32. Spider

    Spider Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    UK
    No one would put Nadal over Murray on the basis of talent, ask any objective tennis fan.
     
    #32
  33. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,579
    You'd put him above a guy who's won six slams this decade on 3 different surfaces?
     
    #33
  34. Spider

    Spider Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    UK
    On the basis of pure talent, yes I would.
     
    #34
  35. Marshredder

    Marshredder Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    London, UK
    Agassi was winning slams as far in as 2003, so I'd say he firmly has a place in this decade. Other players, such as Hewitt and Safin also, when playing at their prime, were ahead of Murray.

    Anyway, you can hardly say "based on playing at his prime," as Murray has only played at that a handful of times, hes no-where near consistent enough to say he's second best of the decade, he hasn't even got a slam!
     
    #35
  36. Spider

    Spider Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    UK
    I quoted my initial post just to clear my point. Big difference between more accomplished and more talented. There are many players more accomplished than Nalbandian but he is more talented than most of then.

    There you go.
     
    #36
  37. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,579
    We all have different definitons of 'talent' - so I can't argue with you on that.

    What I will say is that this thread is about Murray's potential, not talent. Whether or not Murray is deemed to have achieved his potential will be a function of what he wins. On the basis that Rafa has already achieved 6 slams (Murray would be delirious if he thought he could retire with 6 slams to his name IMO) - it would not be unreasonable to argue that Rafa's potential is > Murray's potential. Unless you think Murray is going to dominate tennis a la Roger for the next 5 years.
     
    #37
  38. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    I actually agree with Oddjack, Murray thinks too much on court and he starts playing almost pusher tennis sometimes. It's like he wants to put another ball in just to play and think some more instead of just winning the dam point. Murray gives me the impression that he ends the point once he is bored. Seriously. Look,it's like this: Nadal is a almost purely instinctual player(little strategy,a lot of fight),Federer is the perfect mix of knowing what to do and when to do it and Murray knows how to do it but not when to do it and he seems to lack a killer instinct,unlike the first two guys on my list.

    And he has no excuse for not developing a decent second serve(his first one isn't great either) seeing as unlike the other guy with a bad serve at the top(Nadal).he actually plays with his natural hand.

    To answer the question,yes,I think Murray does have talent potential but he won't fulfill it with this game.
     
    #38
  39. CMM

    CMM Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    6,713
    You've posted in the wrong thread. Let me help you http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=300786
     
    #39
  40. Spider

    Spider Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    UK
    Hey, thanks for the help, actually I meant to post it here, and not there. Some of variety he produces, especially on his slice, most players are incapable of doing that (including Nadal).
     
    #40
  41. Marshredder

    Marshredder Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    London, UK
    I lol'ed.

    There are 2 things that mean your opinion on Murray is flawed.

    1) He's the least liked player on the board, no-ones going to back you up.

    2) He's FAR from the second best player of the decade, talent wise or otherwise. Theres no doubt, he's NOT the second best, I would be wary of putting him in the top 10.
     
    #41
  42. MethodTennis

    MethodTennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,617
    this much __ federer has this much---
     
    #42
  43. CMM

    CMM Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    6,713
    I like Murray. And I'm not British.
     
    #43
  44. Antonio Puente

    Antonio Puente Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,203
    Location:
    Buenavista
    So, you're the one.
     
    #44
  45. Gugafan

    Gugafan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,954
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    I like Murray but he is nowhere near as talented as Nadal. Just because he can slice well and play with alot of variety doesn't make him anymore talented, especially considering he has defficiencys in other more important parts of his game like Forehand and second serve.
     
    #45
  46. SempreSami

    SempreSami Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,627
    Location:
    UK
    He could definitely win a slam, probably heighten his chances if he knew when he has to be a bit more aggressive.
     
    #46
  47. nickynu

    nickynu Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    767
    When Lazy people rag on Murray for his serve, look at the tour stats for the year.

    1st service- Points won % = ANDY MURRAY 9th on tour - Consider that Djokovic is 21st on tour .... Yes 21st ..... and get ready for it NADAL is ....... well erm nowhere (27th best on tour) Davydenko is one spot behind that even 28th

    2nd service - points won = ANDY MURAY 8th on tour - consider Del potro is ............ 16th on tour.

    So even if you think thats not impressive ...... Look at return of serve

    Andy murray leads the ATP tour on points won against the 1st serve and is second on every other catagory only Nadal has a better record on those(points against 2nd serve/ break point conversion / return games won)

    Murray = TALENT .... Dont take my word, Its Statistically proven :shock:
     
    #47
  48. Marshredder

    Marshredder Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    London, UK
    If you want statistics....

    Murray Grand Slams - 0
    Nadal Grand Slams - 6
    Djokovic - 1
    Del Potro - 1
    Hewitt - 2

    You can analyse "talent" via %'s all you want, you can make conclusions based on those etc etc, but at the end of the day, its Slams that matter, theyre what the talent is aimed at achieving, and you can have all the talent in the world, but if you dont use it to win slams, then well...

    Theres a beginner girl at my club that NEVER misses a first serve. Her first serves are SLOW, but so so consistent. Her first serves in % is higher than most top 100 players in all likelihood, but does that make her more talented?

    No.
     
    #48
  49. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916




    And here's another statistically proven fact :



    Andy Murray : ZERO SLAMS
     
    #49
  50. britbox

    britbox Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    237
    I dislike Murray and I am British.

    Murray does have the potential to win a slam but needs to take his head out of his backside and understand you don't win them by playing passive reactive tennis - no slam is going to fall into his lap. Fortune favours the brave and unless he starts becoming more agressive and less reactive then he won't be winning majors. Definitely has the potential but I don't think he will.
     
    #50

Share This Page