Why are all these experts saying Murray needs to be aggressive?

[Russeljones]

Brad Gilbert, Murray's former coach:

"Forehand, return and serve - those are the three areas in which Murray must excel if he is to beat Federer. It's crucial he plays aggressive and continues to show a positive attitude."

John Lloyd, former Davis Cup captain:

"If Andy continues to get balls back at the rate he has done all fortnight he will put Federer in such awkward positions that, over five sets, the Swiss can be ground down."

Tim Henman, four-time Wimbledon semi-finalist:

"There's a four-square-metre danger zone in the middle of the court where Federer will dispatch anything. Andy must keep the ball out of that zone and if he does it aggressively, Federer will struggle to dictate. Keeping the ball deep can frustrate the Swiss and will eventually see him move closer to the baseline, take some risks and possibly make more unforced errors."

Mark Petchey, Murray's former coach:

"It's crucial that Andy starts well. In each of his previous Grand Slam finals - the 2008 US Open and the 2010 and 2011 Australian Opens - he started poorly and went on to lose in straight sets. Repeat that against Federer and it's a long road back."

I agree with Petchey but let's get to the matter at hand. Why should all of a sudden, at the pinnacle of his career, Murray begin to play in a manner alien to him? How can this possibly yield a positive result? He's mastered the art of defence and while he hasn't had success in previous Slam tournament finals, he's grown since then and surely knows how to time his spurts of aggression. Asking him to abandon his well-rounded game in favour of a gung-ho approach vs one of the greatest grass court players of all time seems suicidal to me.

What does everyone think?

[Oceansize]

Because consistent attacking tennis beats Murray's play it safe style. Federer plays his best tennis in the Slams, whilst the pressure weighs Murray down, and his instinct to play passively takes over.

Murray's only chance is to go for it like Berdych and Tsonga both did in the last two Wimbledons. Obviously, it's not his style, so it probably won't happen.

[Cosmic_Colin]

I don't really understand what Murray's style is meant to be. People call him a counterpuncher or even a pusher, yet he can produce some serious power.

His first serve MPH is really good and he produces some great backhands. Watching him vs Tsonga on Friday or Gasquet at the FO I saw him produce a lot of angles and come to the net.

Considering his best results have been on hard courts and his worst on clay, I can't see him as this all-defense player people describe.

He seems to be more of a balance between attack and defense, waiting until (what he sees as) the right moment to pull the trigger. The 'experts' are saying he needs to do it sooner, but most of them have never achieved what Murray has.

He has consistently been near the very top of the mens game, and could move to the very top, but I think it's more about confidence and consistency rather than aggression.

[FrisbeeFool]

Because it's hard to beat the best players in the world when you are waiting for them to miss. Murray has able to win a lot of points against Tsonga by hitting really aggressive forehands. If he can do the same in the finals, he might have a chance. Look at Djokovic, when he first came on tour he had a a great game, but his forehand was not as much of a weapon as some of the top guys'. Djokovic worked on improving his forehand, and now that he can end points at will with his forehand he is the best player in the world.

[paulorenzo]

Originally Posted by Russeljones

Brad Gilbert, Murray's former coach:

John Lloyd, former Davis Cup captain:

Tim Henman, four-time Wimbledon semi-finalist:

Mark Petchey, Murray's former coach:

I agree with Petchey but let's get to the matter at hand. Why should all of a sudden, at the pinnacle of his career, Murray begin to play in a manner alien to him? How can this possibly yield a positive result? He's mastered the art of defence and while he hasn't had success in previous Slam tournament finals, he's grown since then and surely knows how to time his spurts of aggression. Asking him to abandon his well-rounded game in favour of a gung-ho approach vs one of the greatest grass court players of all time seems suicidal to me.

What does everyone think?

i wouldn't say it's alien to him. he did it with great success against rafa at AO in 2010. i do feel that sticking to what he's been doing would be the safest thing to do, since he doesn't have to worry about trying to out last his opponent like he does in his matches against djokovic, although i do remember him going for his shots against djokovic in dubai this year.

perhaps the reason they want him to play aggressively is because this is grass. but the underlying message i got from those quotes is they want murray to go for his shots and feel confident, not play tentatively against federer. i actually think john lloyd is saying the opposite of what you're implying.

"If Andy continues to get balls back at the rate he has done all fortnight he will put Federer in such awkward positions that, over five sets, the Swiss can be ground down."

[joeri888]

Andy needs to realize that when fed is playing well enough to
Reach a slam final, he'll play well in it too. Rather than hoping for Roger to Miss, Andy needs to take matters in his own hands

[nereis]

They say it because even Lleyton Hewitt's thrashing of Nalbandian in 2002 involved him being aggressive, pushing his opponent around and pulling the trigger when he had an opening.