Incredible Mental Strength By Murray

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by President

All this, despite Murray having an "inferior" 2 handed backhand and playing with a wrong sized racquet?

Nobody ever claimed that you can't be more consistent with a 2HBH and/or a bigger racquet. You just need less skill to do so than with a 1HBH and/or smaller racquet. However, for more ultimate power, a 1HBH is better. And for ultimate precision when going for winners, a smaller racquet is better. However, if you just want to keep the ball in play forever, a 2HBH and bigger racquet are better. That's why they are the weapons of choice for pushers.

[ultradr]

Murray is very careful and methodical in solving problem.

That used to bring up a bit of chokes, as evidenced by a few slam final/semi's
against Federer in the past.

He finally seems to overcome it after his 1st slam title and big win over Federer last year...

[xan]

Originally Posted by winstonplum

The "incredible mental strength" I'm referring to is after tightening up like crazy in the first TB, he came right out strong in the third set. And then at the end of the fourth, serving for the match, feeling like he was getting jammed up with challenges, Fed yelling something at him, and then losing the set meekly; after all that he came out like gangbusters in the fifth. That's incredible mental strength. Ask Stosur and Amalgro how not winning the match when they were serving for it went.

Part of mental strength, IMO, is when the match doesn't end when you want it to, feel it should, need it to, are praying that it will, and to be able to shake it off and win the next game or the next set. Luckily, because of Murray's fabulous serving he always had a one set cushion.

I can see where are you coming from but i still don't agree. he wasn't a mental wreck he used to be, and in those terms, yes, he improved his mental strength.
but like i said in those clutch moments he was behind.
sure he was under pressure to perform in 5th after failing to close out the 4th set and losing another tie break, and that considered yeah, he held it well. but he was always 'leading' the match, always challenging Roger's serve, serving spectacularly well. and he hold it together when it counted the most and didn't fall apart like in the past.
so all credit to him, but until he performs like this while on the verge of losing i will hold my breath before calling Murray a mental giant and accredit this win to his rather solid play.

edit: we just might find out what's he made of comes the sunday.

[winstonplum]

He might not be a "mental giant" but that was a huge step--beating Fed in a slam. He's jumped some huge hurdles in the last six-eight months. Tomorrow night is a pick 'em as far as I can see. Whoever is hot and striking the ball better should win.

[norbac]

Originally Posted by xan

all credit to Murray, but incredible mental strength? I don't agree.
whenever it got close, where you needed to bring your A game Murray was trailing behind.
first tie break? Murray lost it.
serving for the match? Murray gets broken.
second tie break? Murray loses it again.

so once again, credit where credit is due but his great serving day and reasonable consistency is what allowed him to prevail today, not his mental strength.

Mental strength is as much about taking your chances as it is about responding positively when you don't.

[martini1]

You guys should realize it is Ivan's mental strength that was at work. Now let's see if he can beat Djoker again. If he does, his confidence level would bring him a lot more majors in a convincing way.

[xan]

we talked about mental strength, didnt we?

[DeShaun]

I thought Andy was playing from ahead on score for most of the match, I could be wrong though. The match overall seemed to be on Andy's racket partly because, whatever Andy was doing it was not enabling Roger to get his forehand grooved, and so, Roger seemed to be the only one out there who was playing possum/old man's tennis, whereas Andy was consistently taking bigger stronger cuts off the ground more successfully and generally dictating the rallies offensively while not having to play a terribly great deal of stellar defense except in tiny spurts, say, whenever Roger good get a hold of and lace a couple of good shots in a row which were few and far between, it seemed to me. So, what I'm saying is that Andy kind of bossed his opponent about, and was clearly outplaying Roger from point to point (compare their total points won, where Andy grossly overshadowed Roger).

I've lost matches where most everything in my game was flowing as particular units--was volleying well, was serving well, was stroking from the back court well, etc--and my opponent never was able to hurt me, or string together three or more points in a row...but I still lost the match; so, good on Andy for pulling that match out, or for not letting it slip through his fingers. But whenever he serves 21 aces and hits something like 25 more winners per match than his opponent- especially in a guy like Federer who feeds off of hitting winners, then I would expect Andy to come through with stats like these, and so I would not know how to rationalize the statement that, by winning this match in particular he showed great mental strength because most of the time he was playing ahead on score while leading in every major statistical category throughout, which to me sort of evokes the statement that, it's easier to win when your'e outplaying your opponent.