Andy Murray's finals record in Majors

D.Nalby12

Legend
We know Murray has lost a considerable number of finals. But after his latest defeat in Australia, I don't think I can recall a player losing so many finals in either the mens or womens game since I've been watching tennis. As it stands Murray played nine major finals so far and lost seven?

2008 US Open, 2010 Australia, 2011 Australia, 2012 Wimbledon, 2013 Australia, 2015 Australia, 2016 Australia.

That is a very poor return in finals which no player would wish to have. Now, I understand the argument that he has done fantastically well to get to so many finals and of course played top players every time. But both finalists always have a chance to win. So, what does Murray have to seriously consider doing to turn this situation around? Tactically? Coach wise etc? What should Murray focus on, assuming he will play a few more major finals before his career is over.
Same thing what he did back in 2012/13 - avoid Big 3 player before final and pray for final opponent having an off day.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
Murray >Roddick , even the 28 year old Murray is good enough to win master on clay and defeat Novak in masters finals in Novak best years.
On topic we never know how he is going to perform if he played different player in finals, btw he do defeated Novak+Fed to win Olympics gold and defeated number 1 player of his time time to win slams.
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
Interview of the average Federer fan:

Q: Do you think Roddick deserved more than one slam?

A: Yes, definitely. Murray has 2 so Roddick deserved 2 for sure, especially Wimbledon.

Q: If you could change history, would you give 1 Wimbledon to Roddick if it means Federer has 1 less Wimbledon to his resume, 6 instead of 7 (and a total of 16 slams instead of 17)?

A: Hmmm.. No.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
Interview of the average Federer fan:

Q: Do you think Roddick deserved more than one slam?

A: Yes, definitely. Murray has 2 so Roddick deserved 2 for sure, especially Wimbledon.

Q: If you could change history, would you give 1 Wimbledon to Roddick if it means Federer has 1 less Wimbledon to his resume, 6 instead of 7 (and a total of 16 slams instead of 17)?

A: Hmmm.. No.
Actually my problem is some hardcore fed fans overrating Roddick and Nalbandian, if you think Roddick faced peak Fed then think about Murray when he came there was peak Fed , then peak Rafa and then Age of Ultron . Murray won his grand slams, masters , olympic gold medal and acheived whatever by defeating them.
 
Last edited:

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
Actually my problem is some hardcore fed fans overrating Roddick abd Nalbandian, if you think Roddick faced peak Fed then think about Murray when he came there was peak Fed , then peak Rafa and then Age of Ultron . Murray won his grand slams, masters , olympic gold medal and acheived whatever by defeating them.
And I am glad you also highlighted the massive difference between Murray and Roddick on clay, it is conveniently ignored by many Roddick fans when comparing the two players.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
And I am glad you also highlighted the massive difference between Murray and Roddick on clay, it is conveniently ignored by many Roddick fans when comparing the two players.
Because he is not going to win FO at any cost by defeating Rafa, Novak and Fed. But he can actually defeat many good clay courters, just because he don't have RG Roddicks fans thinks that loosing to Nole, Rafa at semis is same like Roddick loosing in 2nd or 3rd round.
 

mika1979

Professional
We know Murray has lost a considerable number of finals. But after his latest defeat in Australia, I don't think I can recall a player losing so many finals in either the mens or womens game since I've been watching tennis. As it stands Murray played nine major finals so far and lost seven?

2008 US Open, 2010 Australia, 2011 Australia, 2012 Wimbledon, 2013 Australia, 2015 Australia, 2016 Australia.

That is a very poor return in finals which no player would wish to have. Now, I understand the argument that he has done fantastically well to get to so many finals and of course played top players every time. But both finalists always have a chance to win. So, what does Murray have to seriously consider doing to turn this situation around? Tactically? Coach wise etc? What should Murray focus on, assuming he will play a few more major finals before his career is over.
Just unlucky to be born when he was just posted somewhere else look at Agassi had some tough finals but also got schuttler clement medved Martin. Whilst the last two are ok they are less than stellar and the first two are just plain bad. Unfortunately for Andy the fact that he has spent his career playing against goat 1 2 and 3 who are also super consistent and make every slam semi and final has sucked.
 

mika1979

Professional
Actually my problem is some hardcore fed fans overrating Roddick and Nalbandian, if you think Roddick faced peak Fed then think about Murray when he came there was peak Fed , then peak Rafa and then Age of Ultron . Murray won his grand slams, masters , olympic gold medal and acheived whatever by defeating them.
It is the strong era weak era bs that is all over the place. Stats don't lie having to defeat at least two all time greats sometimes three just to win a title is very tough. Any era would be easy if you are the best, it is only from whose position you are looking at. If you are ranked below say number 4 or five in the world than this is the toughest era of all time to win anything in. For Nadal or Fed or Djokovic at their best any era would be easy.
 
With Murray, like with Lendl, if you look at who he was losing to its hard to shame him for really any of those loses. Murray is still arguable as the 4th best player of his generation and was always included in the "big 4". He is still consistent for all his issues, and still doing well enough to be world #2 right now. While a 2-7 finals record looks pretty bad for all the people who like to drum up numbers, conversely he made 9 major finals...something not many players can claim, and the people beating him in those finals were all all time greats. Initially in his first few majors finals he was not the most confident, and given he was facing Federer that is understandable. Those first few he didn't play great, he was honestly a mess at times...he has improved. Its just Novak has proven himself to be to good whenever they have clashed in a final. Harping on Murray for losing all those finals is almost like harping on Venus for the finals she lost to Serena. At least Murray has managed to win 2 majors including Wimbledon (huge mental thing for him being a hometown boy). If he was 0-9 and getting thumped every single time I could see the point...but he isn't. I wish his record were better for his sake, but its still good all things considered, like Mandlikova when she had to deal with Evert, Martina and Graf.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
With Murray, like with Lendl, if you look at who he was losing to its hard to shame him for really any of those loses. Murray is still arguable as the 4th best player of his generation and was always included in the "big 4". He is still consistent for all his issues, and still doing well enough to be world #2 right now. While a 2-7 finals record looks pretty bad for all the people who like to drum up numbers, conversely he made 9 major finals...something not many players can claim, and the people beating him in those finals were all all time greats. Initially in his first few majors finals he was not the most confident, and given he was facing Federer that is understandable. Those first few he didn't play great, he was honestly a mess at times...he has improved. Its just Novak has proven himself to be to good whenever they have clashed in a final. Harping on Murray for losing all those finals is almost like harping on Venus for the finals she lost to Serena. At least Murray has managed to win 2 majors including Wimbledon (huge mental thing for him being a hometown boy). If he was 0-9 and getting thumped every single time I could see the point...but he isn't. I wish his record were better for his sake, but its still good all things considered, like Mandlikova when she had to deal with Evert, Martina and Graf.
Thanks.

However, what I am asking is what can Murray do to turn the situation around, not how Murray can console himself that he is playing against very good players so just accept the fate, we expect him to make more finals in future.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
Thanks.

However, what I am asking is what can Murray do to turn the situation around, not how Murray can console himself that he is playing against very good players so just accept the fate, we expect him to make more finals in future.
To be fair , he was turning the tables before the injury in 2013 and that completely derailed his career , Novak with the help of Becker and Fed with late resurgence has moved forward. Murray is going to be 29 in couple of months and with injury prone body, with playing style which put lot of pressure on his body, he has to do something very quickly or he will fade very fastly like Rafa.
He should work more on his serve and forehand to shorthen the points like Novak.
 
Last edited:

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Roddick was talented, you can't teach shoulder flexibility like that, that's physical talent. Never really understood why he couldn't learn a normal backhand or why he changed into a grinder, but he had talent anyway.

Thing with Murray is that he lacks the forehand. Just not enough wrist/whip on it, so either it's flat or it lacks the pace. It makes all the difference against Djokovic as he can't finish the points without commiting too many errors.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
Lendl was 1-6 at one point.
And he was 25 at that point and ranked N°1 in 1984 in some weeks, not like Murray who's close to 29 and hasn't reached World N°1.
When Lendl was Andy's current age, held a 6-10 record in Slam finals and over 180 weeks in N°1.
 
Thanks.

However, what I am asking is what can Murray do to turn the situation around, not how Murray can console himself that he is playing against very good players so just accept the fate, we expect him to make more finals in future.
my answer is that he needs to console himself. Novaks level the last few years has been very high as Fed's was when Andy was playing finals against him. Novak and Fed at their absolute peak have, for Murray, been unbeatable. Its not like he can do much. He has been playing better, he is number 2 in the world, and he still is losing in straights to Novak. He just needs to bide his time and wait for an opening, because the level Novak displayed at the Aussie was just above what Murray seems capable of matching right now. There isnt much in his game that he can change. Sure he can improve his shots, possibly still play more aggressively, but that is no guarantee to anything. Literally he should be happy to have acheived what he has in a generation where, at least at the very top, the competition has been very high. He has played against 3 people who at the end of their career's will all be arguable top 10 all time...asking what Murray can do is like asking what Hana could have done against Evert, Martina and Graf....not to much.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
my answer is that he needs to console himself. Novaks level the last few years has been very high as Fed's was when Andy was playing finals against him. Novak and Fed at their absolute peak have, for Murray, been unbeatable. Its not like he can do much. He has been playing better, he is number 2 in the world, and he still is losing in straights to Novak. He just needs to bide his time and wait for an opening, because the level Novak displayed at the Aussie was just above what Murray seems capable of matching right now. There isnt much in his game that he can change. Sure he can improve his shots, possibly still play more aggressively, but that is no guarantee to anything. Literally he should be happy to have acheived what he has in a generation where, at least at the very top, the competition has been very high. He has played against 3 people who at the end of their career's will all be arguable top 10 all time...asking what Murray can do is like asking what Hana could have done against Evert, Martina and Graf....not to much.
Just slightly a bit too defeatist for my liking. In 2012 and 2013 Novak lost quite a few finals. Novak didn't accept that it would be like that for the rest of his career and decided to do something about it.

It's not too late for Murray, players are playing at the top longer these days.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Don't forget that keeping fit and avoiding surgeries also makes a big difference. Djokovic (and Federer too largely) have been able to progress with their careers without being interrupted by any major injuries.
Murray had back surgery before Federer beat him 3 times in the slam final. Of Nole's 4 wins over Murray, 2 were after Murray had back surgery. At least Murray had beaten Nole 2 times at USO 2012 and Wimbledon 2013 final before the surgery.
 

timnz

Legend
And he was 25 at that point and ranked N°1 in 1984 in some weeks, not like Murray who's close to 29 and hasn't reached World N°1.
When Lendl was Andy's current age, held a 6-10 record in Slam finals and over 180 weeks in N°1.
Actually Lendl was 22 (1 week before his 23rd birthday) when he was first was number 1 in 1983 on February 28th, 1983. So your point stands even more. Still think that Andy Murray is a fantastic player - but who would fend well having Nadal, Federer and Djokovic ahead of them - grabbing most of the glory.
 
I find it interesting to compare this years semi-final and final for Murray. Murray hit 28 unforced errors over 5 sets in the semi, then 65 in the final over the 3 sets. This is a crazy difference within two days. Murray had a great strategy against Djokovic, he was undone by all those errors. To me this can only be explained by the mental advantage Djok has now.
It's not only mental. How many shots per rally did he hit against Djokovic compared to against Raonic? I imagine it was more than twice as many. If he's hitting more than twice as many shots, he's likely to hit more than twice as many errors. Djokovic puts much more pressure on him than did Raonic (except on serve, of course).
 
Just slightly a bit too defeatist for my liking. In 2012 and 2013 Novak lost quite a few finals. Novak didn't accept that it would be like that for the rest of his career and decided to do something about it.

It's not too late for Murray, players are playing at the top longer these days.
Novak did essentially what I am saying Murray needs to do, he kept plugging away, playing his best and practicing and waited for his moment when Fed and Nadal both saw drops in their levels an he stepped up, took control and, with the confidence he has gained from that kept it. Fed and Rafa both slipped down from their absolute peaks and Novak stepped in to take control.

I'm disappointed that Murray didn't fully step up to join him but Murray went through his own slump after winning his 2 majors, but he is back and is number 2 in the world. If he keeps steady and studies Novak and waits for that slip, he can step up and take control.

But at the same time of the big 4 of Fed, Novak, Rafa and Murray....someone was bound to come out the least accomplished of that group...it's natural. It just happens to, for the time being, be Murray. Just like out of the 4 of Hana, Chris, Martina and Steffi from the 80's it just ended up being Hana. A great player but just, at the very top, surrounded by stronger.

Murray still has chances, I'm not saying he doesn't or that he's never going to win again, but I also don't expect he's going to somehow roll out 10 slams and be in double digits with the other 3 guys either. He's good, talented, but at the end of the day one of those 4 had to come up shorter.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Novak did essentially what I am saying Murray needs to do, he kept plugging away, playing his best and practicing and waited for his moment when Fed and Nadal both saw drops in their levels an he stepped up, took control and, with the confidence he has gained from that kept it. Fed and Rafa both slipped down from their absolute peaks and Novak stepped in to take control.

I'm disappointed that Murray didn't fully step up to join him but Murray went through his own slump after winning his 2 majors, but he is back and is number 2 in the world. If he keeps steady and studies Novak and waits for that slip, he can step up and take control.

But at the same time of the big 4 of Fed, Novak, Rafa and Murray....someone was bound to come out the least accomplished of that group...it's natural. It just happens to, for the time being, be Murray. Just like out of the 4 of Hana, Chris, Martina and Steffi from the 80's it just ended up being Hana. A great player but just, at the very top, surrounded by stronger.

Murray still has chances, I'm not saying he doesn't or that he's never going to win again, but I also don't expect he's going to somehow roll out 10 slams and be in double digits with the other 3 guys either. He's good, talented, but at the end of the day one of those 4 had to come up shorter.
Well of course no one expects Murray to win ten slams but one or two more would be nice :)

I would also prefer to see Murray beat Djokovic in a final, like Wawrinka has. In that way, no one can say he waited for Djokovic to slip up and get someone else in the final.

A different situation but one of the reasons Angie Kerber has got so much love the last few days is because she gave Serena a damned good match, went for her opportunities, not hoping for the best, that's what people like to see and again why Wawrinka was so acclaimed last June. Even in 2014 Aus final before Nadal injured himself, he was getting outplayed by Wawrinka.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Murray >Roddick , even the 28 year old Murray is good enough to win master on clay and defeat Novak in masters finals in Novak best years.
On topic we never know how he is going to perform if he played different player in finals, btw he do defeated Novak+Fed to win Olympics gold and defeated number 1 player of his time time to win slams.
Not that I think that Roddick is better than Murray but:
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Murray has 11 wins over Fed...
And Roddick has 5 wins over Djokovic and actually leads him in the h2h. Your point?

Murray's win against Djokovic was a fluke just as Roddick's win against Federer was a fluke. They can happen and mean nothing.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
For one thing, Roddick had no backhand. It was a terrible weakness. Murray's forehand is weaker than his backhand but nowhere near Roddick's deficiency level. Also, Murray can last for more than a few shots in a rally before spraying the ball everywhere. He is much better than Roddick and has even challenged Federer more than Roddick did.
Not in slam finals.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Murray >Roddick , even the 28 year old Murray is good enough to win master on clay and defeat Novak in masters finals in Novak best years.
On topic we never know how he is going to perform if he played different player in finals, btw he do defeated Novak+Fed to win Olympics gold and defeated number 1 player of his time time to win slams.
Federer was no.1 at USO 2012, not Novak.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray had back surgery before Federer beat him 3 times in the slam final.
No, Murray's back surgery was in October 2013. That was well after he lost to Federer in those 3 Slam finals ( 2008 USO, 2010 AO, 2012 Wimbledon).

Of Nole's 4 wins over Murray, 2 were after Murray had back surgery. At least Murray had beaten Nole 2 times at USO 2012 and Wimbledon 2013 final before the surgery.
That's correct. The 2 post surgery wins were the 2015 and 2016 AO finals.
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
And Roddick has 5 wins over Djokovic and actually leads him in the h2h. Your point?

Murray's win against Djokovic was a fluke just as Roddick's win against Federer was a fluke. They can happen and mean nothing.
Since you guys are all talking about indirect H2H, why not mention the most relevant H2H between the two?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/andy-roddick-vs-andy-murray/R485/MC10

This H2H doesnt lie, does it? And there is no match on clay.

Not saying this H2H is the best factor to measure the difference between the two players, but it is more relevant than indirect H2H.

Not sure what everyone is trying to argue about here. Murray > Roddick, that is not exactly rocket science, is it :)
And Lol @the discussion on page 1 about weapons, Anderson has more weapons than Ferrer, that does not make him a better player than Ferrer.
 
L

Laurie

Guest
Since you guys are all talking about indirect H2H, why not mention the most relevant H2H between the two?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/andy-roddick-vs-andy-murray/R485/MC10

This H2H doesnt lie, does it? And there is no match on clay.

Not saying this H2H is the best factor to measure the difference between the two players, but it is more relevant than indirect H2H.

Not sure what everyone is trying to argue about here. Murray > Roddick, that is not exactly rocket science, is it :)
And Lol @the discussion on page 1 about weapons, Anderson has more weapons than Ferrer, that does not make him a better player than Ferrer.
I thought the 2009 Wimbledon semifinal against Murray was the best match Roddick played in his career maybe, a consistently very high level.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I thought the 2009 Wimbledon semifinal against Murray was the best match Roddick played in his career maybe, a consistently very high level.
It was quite remarkable given that Murray had won their last 3 meetings and had schooled him in the final of Doha just a few months earlier. But Larry Stefanki, Roddick's new coach, warned that it would not be the same Roddick who turned up to play Murray at Wimbledon that year. He was right. Roddick had shed some weight, moved better and played with more focus. I particularly recall how few errors he made in that match (quite a turnaround for him) and made it unusually difficult for Murray to play the way he usually played against him. It was certainly an eye-opener for Murray who was a bit shell-shocked as were the rest of us. Of course, after the heartbreak of the final, Roddick never played as well as that again in a best of 5 match.
 

EmmanuelJ

New User
But surely there are other coaches out there who can motivate him or persuade him to change his game plan?

I ask about someone like Becker because I noticed Murray has twice chosen coaches who had a similar experience to him. Both Amelie Mauresmo and Ivan Lendl had reputations of succumbing to the pressure and overcame that to be worthy champions. Both Lendl and Mauresmo are talented but played a percentage game. Whereas in Becker's case, Djokovic chose a man who played a different game to him but Becker has really been able to get Djokovic to play a more aggressive game which has turned around his game. Let's not forget, Djokovic was also losing a lot of major finals pre 2015.

Therefore, if Djokovic can turn it around, why can't Murray?

I think a more positive and enterprising coach could help Murray to expand his mind a bit more on how the game can and should be played.
Couldn't agree with this more.
 
Actually my problem is some hardcore fed fans overrating Roddick and Nalbandian, if you think Roddick faced peak Fed then think about Murray when he came there was peak Fed , then peak Rafa and then Age of Ultron . Murray won his grand slams, masters , olympic gold medal and acheived whatever by defeating them.
Not THEM, only Nole. En route to his slams, Murray only beat Nole. I put 'only' in italics because even that is a huge ask of him. But Nole was the one player from the Big Three with whom Murray's game matched up well and he beat him to win those two slams. But Nole has since improved his serve while Murray has regressed so he's getting beaten handily in the match up now. He was probably unlucky in 2008 when he beat Nadal at USO only to lose to Fed in a tough final. But again, Nole has done those things so he went where Murray couldn't.

Anyway, back to Murray, he could never beat peak Fed in a slam and it could be argued that in 2008 Nadal wasn't yet that strong on hard court as he would go on to be. I do credit that USO win because it was still a very good version of hard court Nadal but in 2011 he beat Murray in the same tournament. Beat him at Wimbledon too. It could be argued that had Murray played in the same timeframe as Roddick, he too would have been losing finals to Fed at Wimbledon. There's no doubt that he was better than Roddick and Nalbandian but I don't see him as being able to dislodge Fed in the so called weak era. So what else? Beating Rafa at RG? No chance. GOAT-Safin in Aus Open 2005? Nope. Maybe RG 2004 but Murray lost to Ferrer in 2012 RG so maybe he would have lost to Coria/Gaudio anyway. Murray is unlucky to have played along side three ATGs but at the same time he is not ATG material himself and would have likely played second fiddle in most eras of the game.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
Not THEM, only Nole. En route to his slams, Murray only beat Nole. I put 'only' in italics because even that is a huge ask of him. But Nole was the one player from the Big Three with whom Murray's game matched up well and he beat him to win those two slams. But Nole has since improved his serve while Murray has regressed so he's getting beaten handily in the match up now. He was probably unlucky in 2008 when he beat Nadal at USO only to lose to Fed in a tough final. But again, Nole has done those things so he went where Murray couldn't.

Anyway, back to Murray, he could never beat peak Fed in a slam and it could be argued that in 2008 Nadal wasn't yet that strong on hard court as he would go on to be. I do credit that USO win because it was still a very good version of hard court Nadal but in 2011 he beat Murray in the same tournament. Beat him at Wimbledon too. It could be argued that had Murray played in the same timeframe as Roddick, he too would have been losing finals to Fed at Wimbledon. There's no doubt that he was better than Roddick and Nalbandian but I don't see him as being able to dislodge Fed in the so called weak era. So what else? Beating Rafa at RG? No chance. GOAT-Safin in Aus Open 2005? Nope. Maybe RG 2004 but Murray lost to Ferrer in 2012 RG so maybe he would have lost to Coria/Gaudio anyway. Murray is unlucky to have played along side three ATGs but at the same time he is not ATG material himself and would have likely played second fiddle in most eras of the game.
Balance opinion and works for me, my point is very simple Murray and my other favourite Hewitt could have snatched couple of slams more without ATG players.
 
Definitely. Let's not forget Hewitt WAS no.1 in 2002, so he could have had a great career - as in great enough for him to get called a great of tennis - had Fed not broken through in 2003.
 
Top