Why has Murray's level dropped since the USO?

[Mainad]

I wonder why his level of play seems to have declined so much since his USO victory? I thought winning his first Slam would have finally relaxed him and made him more confident about his game. But in his subsequent 4 tournaments:

Tokyo: Defending champion. Lost to Raonic in the semis after going up a break and holding 2 match points (this was the guy he destroyed in straights at the USO).

Shanghai: Defending champion. Lost to Djokovic in the final after holding 5 match points.

Paris-Bercy: Normally never gets past the quarters. Didn't even get that far this time. Lost in the 3rd round to qualifier Janowicz after holding yet another match point.

WTF: IMO poor form throughout even though he qualified from the Group stages. Lost in straights to Federer in the semis after holding a break in the first set (this was the guy he beat in straights by the same margin in the semis at Shanghai).

Is he just physically and/or mentally tired after the pressures this year of making his first Wimbledon final, winning the Olympic gold medal and his first ever Grand Slam title?

Why has he lost so much focus and drive? Or am I exaggerating the extent of his malaise?

Any thoughts (serious ones, please)?

[TheF1Bob]

You need to chill out mate. He's still playing at good level, better than last year. It's just Novak and Fed are getting the better of him in this moment of time.

Raonic played lights out on the MP and Paris he was never gonna take seriously.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Murray is a bit of a headcase, he can go from, "Sweet Jesus, mindblowing!" to "WTF is this wanker?" within 5 minutes.

[RF-17-GOAT]

Originally Posted by TheF1Bob

You need to chill out mate. He's still playing at good level, better than last year. It's just Novak and Fed are getting the better of him in this moment of time.

Raonic played lights out on the MP and Paris he was never gonna take seriously.

I agree tbh.

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by Mainad

I wonder why his level of play seems to have declined so much since his USO victory? I thought winning his first Slam would have finally relaxed him and made him more confident about his game. But in his subsequent 4 tournaments:

Tokyo: Defending champion. Lost to Raonic in the semis after going up a break and holding 2 match points (this was the guy he destroyed in straights at the USO).

Shanghai: Defending champion. Lost to Djokovic in the final after holding 5 match points.

Paris-Bercy: Normally never gets past the quarters. Didn't even get that far this time. Lost in the 3rd round to qualifier Janowicz after holding yet another match point.

WTF: IMO poor form throughout even though he qualified from the Group stages. Lost in straights to Federer in the semis after holding a break in the first set (this was the guy he beat in straights by the same margin in the semis at Shanghai).

Is he just physically and/or mentally tired after the pressures this year of making his first Wimbledon final, winning the Olympic gold medal and his first ever Grand Slam title?

Why has he lost so much focus and drive? Or am I exaggerating the extent of his malaise?

Thoughts?

Tokyo: Lost to a better play on the day. USO was a fluke, windy conditions favoured the highland-bred Haggis-eating champ massively.

Shanghai: Djokovic is a superior player. Not much more to say about that.

Paris: Despicable tank. Then again all the players in with a chance of winning london (i.e not Ferrer) tanked/didn't play Paris.

WTF: Lost to superior Djokovic and Federer.


I see no logical inconsistencies here.







Murray had a great year for sure, did that make him complacent? Maybe. Did that drain him mentally? Possibly. Losing to all time greats like Federer and Novak is nothing to be ashamed of and not worth generating excuses for.

[Oceansize]

I too thought after winning a Slam, he would be able to relax and enjoy his tennis more. However, he still seems uptight and prone to taking the 'try not to lose' mentality on to the court.

I'm thinking it's time to accept that Murray will never be able to consistently play attacking, positive tennis like Federer and Djokovic have done. I know lots of people would say he's just not as talented as these guys, but personally, i think he's not far off, it's just that he's mentally too negative and nervous in the big matches.

Who knows, a holiday and some time with Lendl and his sports psychologist might be able to help in the off season.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Oceansize

I too thought after winning a Slam, he would be able to relax and enjoy his tennis more. However, he still seems uptight and prone to taking the 'try not to lose' mentality on to the court.

I'm thinking it's time to accept that Murray will never be able to consistently play attacking, positive tennis like Federer and Djokovic have done. I know lots of people would say he's just not as talented as these guys, but personally, i think he's not far off, it's just that he's mentally too negative and nervous in the big matches.

I think I agree with this.

Originally Posted by Oceansize

Who knows, a holiday and some time with Lendl and his sports psychologist might be able to help in the off season.

He's been with Lendl for almost a year now. Sure, he helped him to win his first Grand Slam but it's seemed all a bit downhill since then. I do wonder how much more time would he need to spend with him to become consistently more confident in his matches? You're probably right that he's never going to be as consistent as Djokovic, Federer and Nadal have been.

[MonkeyBoy]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

USO was a fluke, windy conditions favoured the highland-bred Haggis-eating champ massively.

Originally Posted by Netspirit

If not for the crazy wind that disrupted Djokovic's game he would not have won the USO.

If we're going to strip Murray of the USO due to environmental factors, we might as well strip Federer of Wimbledon by the same principles. Do you deny that Federer benefited more from the closing of the roof than Andy did?

Originally Posted by Netspirit

And if not for the Fed-DelPo suicide semi-final we would not have won the Olympics.

Yes, Federer was spent in the final. It's completely wrong to take from this that Murray did not deserve the gold, or somehow got lucky at the Olympics. Fed wasn't spent due to extratextual factors; he was playing in the same competition as Andy, and if he had a more harrowing ride to the finals, it was purely due to his inability to deal with the circumstances as well as Murray did. The only thing you can complain about is Federer having a harder draw, but I don't think that's evident. Tell me, what's a more impressive feat: Beating DelPo in 4 1/2 hours, or beating Djokovic in less than 2?

Another thing to remember that people never bring up is that, while Fed/Mur both crashed out early in the men's doubles, Murray was competing all the way through in the mixed, while Federer wasn't.

[Netspirit]

Originally Posted by MonkeyBoy

If we're going to strip Murray of the USO due to environmental factors, we might as well strip Federer of Wimbledon by the same principles. Do you deny that Federer benefited more from the closing of the roof than Andy did?

Oh yes, absolutely. He won the second set with the roof still open and had enough momentum to win the match in those conditions.

It's completely wrong to take from this that Murray did not deserve the gold, or somehow got lucky at the Olympics.

Murray did deserve the gold. The point is: that medal does not prove that he somehow reached the next level and is expected to maintain that level permanently.

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Netspirit

Oh yes, absolutely. He won the second set with the roof still open and had enough momentum to win the match in those conditions.

He only narrowly won the 2nd set. The closure of the roof changed conditions completely and definitely favoured Federer. Had Federer lost that match you would no doubt have used the closure of the roof as an excuse just as you seem to think the wind blew more strongly on Djokovic's side of the court than it did on Murray's at the USO!

Originally Posted by Netspirit

Murray did deserve the gold. The point is: that medal does not prove that he somehow reached the next level and is expected to maintain that level permanently.

Well, he went on to win the USO but, oh I forgot, that one was down to the wind (because we all know that Murray is the only player on the tour that isn't affected by the wiind). I guess if it weren't for hurricanes and tired opponents, he would never win anything, would he?

[kalyan4fedever]

Originally Posted by Mainad

He only narrowly won the 2nd set. The closure of the roof changed conditions completely and definitely favoured Federer. Had Federer lost that match you would no doubt have used the closure of the roof as an excuse just as you seem to think the wind blew more strongly on Djokovic's side of the court than it did on Murray's at the USO!

ok murraa is great we get it

[Netspirit]

Originally Posted by Mainad

He only narrowly won the 2nd set. The closure of the roof changed conditions completely and definitely favoured Federer. Had Federer lost that match you would no doubt have used the closure of the roof as an excuse just as you seem to think the wind blew more strongly on Djokovic's side of the court than it did on Murray's at the USO!

No, why would I use it as an excuse. Closed roof conditions should favor Federer. My point is: he was not losing the match even with the roof open, so obviously conditions were not a deal breaker.

In the USO final, the conditions completely disrupted and randomized the game, nullifying Djokovic's advantage in class. That match does not indicate any "new level" of Murray that would "suddenly drop" after the USO.

There was no drop, as there had been no raise.

[MonkeyBoy]

Originally Posted by Netspirit

Oh yes, absolutely. He won the second set with the roof still open and had enough momentum to win the match in those conditions.

I'm not saying Federer wouldn't have won with the roof open (I think it was his day). But the roof closing did help him. The point: It's all part of the game. Because Murray dealt with the weather better does not detract from his victories, nor mean he necessarily would have lost those matches without it.

Originally Posted by Netspirit

Murray did deserve the gold. The point is: that medal does not prove that he somehow reached the next level and is expected to maintain that level permanently.

Murray's been operating at 'that level' for quite a while; he's just lacked mental resolve to replicate it in big matches. I think the Olympics and USO have helped 'unblock' him in a pretty major way.

[Netspirit]

If not for the crazy wind that disrupted Djokovic's game he would not have won the USO. And if not for the Fed-DelPo suicide semi-final we would not have won the Olympics.

The guy is at the same level he has ever been, maybe a notch better mentally. He did not turn into a multi-slam winning beast overnight, despite all the bandwagoning here.

[tennis_pro]

He maxed out on his potential. Put everything he had into that last set of the US Open final.

Seriously, though, I think that he "loosened" up a bit after winning that first major, maybe he's not willing to give it his best effort?

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by Netspirit

If not for the crazy wind that disrupted Djokovic's game he would not have won the USO. And if not for the Fed-DelPo suicide semi-final we would not have won the Olympics.

Oh come on, not this again. If only wishes were fishes and my uncle was only my aunt! How come the wind only blew on Djokovic's side of the court? And if Fed had beaten Delpo 6-0,6-0 in their Olympic semi or vice versa, how the heck do we know what would have happened in the final?

Originally Posted by Netspirit

The guy is at the same level he has ever been, maybe a notch better mentally. He did not turn into a multi-slam winning beast overnight, despite all the bandwagoning here.

You're probably right. But you have to give Murray some credit for his successes. They can't ALL be down to wind factors or opponents' off-days. If you truly believe that, then you're basically saying Murray is an EXCEPTIONALLY lucky player, virtually unique in the entire annals of the tour! Is that really what you want to say?

[TTMR]

Murray's actually been on the decline since about the AO 2010. That tournament was the best tennis he had ever played, and he has not replicated that feat. Of course, he was slaughtered by three-years-past-his-prime Federer in the final.

From late 2008 to early 2010 Murray could win matches even against the top players with guile, movement and cat and mouse exchanges. Now he can only win when the other guy is having a bad day or is adversely affected by the conditions.

Sure, Murray failed to lose the Olympic Gold against weary five-years-past-his-prime Federer, who, again demolished him three weeks earlier in the biggest tournament of the year. But again, there was no Nadal standing in his way, just like at Wimbledon and again at the USO. Had Nadal been there, Murray would have put up a fight but crumbled as always because Nadal does everything Murray does except better.

Murray did fail to lose the US Open as well, but he didn't even need to play particularly well there. He just needed to let the few guys left (no Fedal) fall around him due to fortuitous weather and favourable scheduling. I mean I give him credit where due, but he is nowhere near the big three and DelPo yet.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by TTMR

Murray's actually been on the decline since about the AO 2010. That tournament was the best tennis he had ever played, and he has not replicated that feat. Of course, he was slaughtered by three-years-past-his-prime Federer in the final.

From late 2008 to early 2010 Murray could win matches even against the top players with guile, movement and cat and mouse exchanges. Now he can only win when the other guy is having a bad day or is adversely affected by the conditions.

Sure, Murray failed to lose the Olympic Gold against weary five-years-past-his-prime Federer, who, again demolished him three weeks earlier in the biggest tournament of the year. But again, there was no Nadal standing in his way, just like at Wimbledon and again at the USO. Had Nadal been there, Murray would have put up a fight but crumbled as always because Nadal does everything Murray does except better.

Murray did fail to lose the US Open as well, but he didn't even need to play particularly well there. He just needed to let the few guys left (no Fedal) fall around him due to fortuitous weather and favourable scheduling. I mean I give him credit where due, but he is nowhere near the big three and DelPo yet.

Pathetic post.

[Netspirit]

Originally Posted by Mainad

How come the wind only blew on Djokovic's side of the court?

"How come the clay is slow and high-bouncing on Nadal's side of the court?" No, clay is slow everywhere but is it the very reason why Nadal wins.

Similarly, the wind neutralizes offense in tennis, rewards high-percentage play, gives pushers an advantage over shot-makers, and that 's why Murray beat Djokovic. I am not saying it is not deserved, I am saying the conditions were very unique and this victory does not suggest that Murray suddenly became a tennis legend, will be spanking Djokovic and everybody should be shocked by his SF exit.

And if Fed had beaten Delpo 6-0,6-0 in their Olympic semi or vice versa, how the heck do we know what would have happened in the final?

We are not talking "ifs" here. Federer was physically and mentally drained after the semi-final, which he said himself after it was over. His play in the final was a clear indication of that.

you're basically saying Murray is an EXCEPTIONALLY lucky player, virtually unique in the entire annals of the tour! Is that really what you want to say?

I want to say that Murray is a one-slam champion, good player like good one-slam champions before him, he has potential to become better and win more, but right now his improvements are moderate and people should not jump his bandwagon just because of the Olympic tournament and the USO. He still has stuff to prove.

[Ginger ninja]

Originally Posted by Netspirit

"How come the clay is slow and high-bouncing on Nadal's side of the court?" No, clay is slow everywhere but is it the very reason why Nadal wins.

Similarly, the wind neutralizes offense in tennis, rewards high-percentage play, gives pushers an advantage over shot-makers, and that 's why Murray beat Djokovic. I am not saying it is not deserved, I am saying the conditions were very unique and this victory does not suggest that Murray suddenly became a tennis legend, will be spanking Djokovic and everybody should be shocked by his SF exit.



We are not talking "ifs" here. Federer was physically and mentally drained after the semi-final, which he said himself after it was over. His play in the final was a clear indication of that.



I want to say that Murray is a one-slam champion, good player like good one-slam champions before him, he has potential to become better and win more, but right now his improvements are moderate and people should not jump his bandwagon just because of the Olympic tournament and the USO. He still has stuff to prove.

We'll hear the same nonsense when he's only a two/three/four slam champion, then he'll be crap because he hasn't completed the career grand slam. Get a grip. He's probably already in the top 15 players ever to have played the game.