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.
How much potential does Andy Murray have?
- Thread starter 2slik
- Start date
Tsonga#1fan
Semi-Pro
I think we have already seen the best of Murray. It will just be more of the same for a few more years.
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 ***** 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.
I believed in Murray at the start of the year. He ***** 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.
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
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.
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'.
batz
G.O.A.T.
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:
J
Jchurch
Guest
He needs to stop pushing. I doubt he'll ever win a slam
dropshot winner
Hall of Fame
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.
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
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.
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.
batz
G.O.A.T.
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.
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
mtr1
Professional
Not true. Henman was consistantly more of a threat at his best slam that Murray will be at his.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
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
As you can see hell never be a top 3 contender at a slam
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.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Hate away mate but even Tim Henman reckons Andy Murray is a better player than Tim Henman was.
Quite amusing. i like Henman, but no way is he greater than Murray. He's achieved more than Henman has in his career.
anointedone
Banned
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.
jazzyfunkybluesy
Banned
Potential is overrated. Show me some results then we can talk.
mtr1
Professional
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.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
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.
All-rounder
Legend
He was only a threat on grass courts
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.
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.
Marshredder
Semi-Pro
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...
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?
No one would put Nadal over Murray on the basis of talent, ask any objective tennis fan.
batz
G.O.A.T.
You'd put him above a guy who's won six slams this decade on 3 different surfaces?
Marshredder
Semi-Pro
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!
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!
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.
batz
G.O.A.T.
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.
namelessone
Legend
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.
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.
You've posted in the wrong thread. Let me help you http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=300786
Marshredder
Semi-Pro
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.
I like Murray. And I'm not British.
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
SempreSami
Hall of Fame
He could definitely win a slam, probably heighten his chances if he knew when he has to be a bit more aggressive.
nickynu
Semi-Pro
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:
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:
Marshredder
Semi-Pro
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.
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.
britbox
Rookie
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.
crackbillionair
Rookie
What's the good in volleying well if you never come to the net?
I vote that Murray has the greatest potential to get into a 200 stroke rally.
And I pray he never wins anything good. The kid is such a terrible puke! I mean that kindly.
He should cut some more promos with ESPN, doing situps and catching the medicine ball. That worked out well.
Then he should talk some more about how he can become number 1 if he wins Cincy and The Open.
Henman had balls and knew when to keep quiet. Murray lacks those attributes.
nickynu
Semi-Pro
OMG if talent is purely only a function of achieving grand slams as your points suggest, I feel guilty about all the enjoyment I gained watching Santoro toy with Safin, or Nastase at wimbledon, J Mac and Sampras at the french.......... or Mecir and Henri leconte generally .
If only I had realised those guys werent actually talented ..............Thanks for your attempts at sucking the enjoyment out of life, and your help in making me see tennis in a different, less interesting, light.
Ps the beginner girl at your club is not better than Murray as she has not won a slam either, so by your arguement she is only equal to Murray, Verdasco, Davydenko ETC. In fact Im looking forward to her emergence next year as a real force on the world scene. Thanks for the heads-up, could you supply details her touring schedule please, as I want to plan my Television viewing. Thanks
Similar threads
- Poll
