Boris Becker on Murray>>>

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
eurosport.co.uk

Sunday's loss was closer, but not much, as only in the third set did the Briton begin to show the aggression and risk-taking necessary to disturb Federer's cruise to his 16th Slam.

Becker said Murray had played the best Slam of his career in Melbourne but needs to work on his aggression.

"How assertive he was in the final was always going to be crucial. At the very start of the match he went head to head with Roger, but he then reverted to his usual defensive game, and allowed Roger to play such great tennis," Becker wrote in the Daily Telegraph.

"Even when he had set points, in the third set, he could not take the big step. He tried to attack, but a mid-court forehand let him down. It is not a shot he would usually select, and on the big points, tennis players revert to instinct.

"It was a revealing moment, and one which showed that Andy now needs to improve technically, to ingrain the killer shot so deep inside him that it becomes instinctive to play it at the right moment, like Roger. That is the next stage in his progression.

"I was looking at Andy's box during the match and there was no one up there who knows what it is like to be out in a Grand Slam final.

"Don't get me wrong, 'Team Murray' are first rate - they have made Andy the third-best player on the planet - but you cannot learn the skills you need out on the centre court from a book, or from hearsay.

"You need to talk to people like John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, someone Andy would listen to and respect. For Murray, it is now about playing the right shot at the right time, not running or going to the gym."

Becker, who won Wimbledon three times, the Australian Open twice and the US Open once, ruled himself out of the job but said Murray needed someone who has achieved the ultimate in the game to be alongside him in the Slams to "talk about the five or so make-or-break shots in a match, and how best to play them".

"Andy will be among the top men's players over the next five years, but if he wants to be above them, not amid them, he needs to have someone in his corner who knows what it is like to win a Grand Slam, to climb the Mount Everest of tennis," Becker said.

"The air is thin up there, and Andy needs to surround himself with people who have been to the summit, who can describe to him how they got there, and how he can as well."
 
I think he's pushing it a bit too far. It's not as if a GS final is actually a different game from the usual game of tennis.

Look at it this way. If Federer played his first slam final against the current Federer, he would have probably lost (and choked too) two straight as well.
 

Ripster

Hall of Fame
I agree with Becker, he needs that X factor to finally win the big one. A former top player would really help him in this respect. He already has all the tools he just needs that extra confidence on the big points.
 

Outbeyond

Legend
Lol spot on the "@sshole tennis academy" opening next week. Haven't seen you lately, btw

I stayed up (3:30am EST) for the Serena final but was so exhausted the entire next day I couldn't join you guys for the big Fed/Murray match! I assume you "were there" with the usual gang? I saw a replay of the third set and the Fed looked mighty good...

Anyway, good chatting with you again. 'Will be around! :)
 
A while ago, Alex Corretja was a part of Team Murray wasn't he? He's been to a GS final....and he's won a Master's Cup.

Pretty sure he's not who Boris was trying to talk up, though, LOL.
 

Ledigs

Legend
Feds already been trying to coach him from the microphone at press conferences. Fed should be his coach
 

Halba

Hall of Fame
murray is very good technically now. just didn't play big points well and serve is spotty .
 
I agree with Becker. Andy doesn't have the attacker's mentality, he's a grinder waiting for his opponent to make the errors. Against Federer, that's not going to cut it.

Now that I think about it, I finally realize why the announcers on ESPN are so boring and have no real insight into the mind of a grand slam winner. Pat Mac, Gilbert, Mary Joe, Cliff Drysdale, Cahill and Pam are all journeymen in singles. They have not idea what it's like to compete for and win a grand slam! They are collectively BORING. Only Cahill has some insight in coaching Agassi when he won a slam. That's why Becker's comments are so interesting. That is why Johnny Mac is so interesting in the booth and why Federer and Nadal are so interesting during interviews. They've been there. ESPN needs to clean out the booth before the next slam. Get Courier and Johnny Mac in there. Even Virginia Wade was more interesting than boring Mary Joe and Pam. Jeezzz!
 

Ledigs

Legend
Like I said, Andy should use the masters as practice so he ingrains aggressive shots into his game. That's what all winners have to do and is probably what nadal means by gaining "confidence"
 
I agree with Becker almost entirely. That's a very interesting article. McEnroe or Connors would be great choices, but would they take the job? They could teach him so much especially about the mental aspects of reaching/being at the very top. Murray does look like he has the will to constantly push himself and improve (based on his improvement), so he may be willing to take such a route.
 

bjk

Hall of Fame
Winning a "grand slam" is same as winning other matches . . . Just more pressure. But pressure is universal . . . Fed or Mac or Boris Becker don't have a monopoly on dealing with pressure.

If you've ever heard Connors commentate, you'd know he'd be a terrible coach. Pat Riley wasn't a great player, neither was Phil Jackson . . . I can't think of a great player who became a great coach.

Coaching and playing are different skills.

Shouldn't Becker be playing poker or hitting on some waitress? He's got more important things to do.
 
...Pat Riley wasn't a great player, neither was Phil Jackson . . . I can't think of a great player who became a great coach. ....

Great examples, but they are from basketball....tough to compare that to as fiercely individual a sport as tennis.

Come to think of it, the real Hall-of-Famer players tend not to coach. They're set.

Segura has coached. Mac a little. Connors a little. But the greats tend to just mentor...and often do it pro-bono. Tony Roche was bviosly a legendary player and also a legendary coach.

BG, Cahill and Lundgren come to mind as players who were good but not great, and turned into very successful coaches. Higueras and Marcos Hocevar, too. Corretja and Todd Martin, too in some ways are headed that way.

I can see Agassi, Guga, Moya and Rafter as incredible in the booth and as coaches. But will that happen? Is there much motivation for them to follow a kid around the tour? Certainly not for 10% plus bonuses.
 
Top