Is Andy Murray a Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic hybrid?

Is Andy Murray a Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic hybrid?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 11.7%
  • No

    Votes: 53 88.3%

  • Total voters
    60
When analyzing Andy Murray's tennis abilities and style, it's blatantly obvious and clear to see how some of his strengths and the things he's good at / does well are what both Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic generally specialize in.

Some the things which are strikingly similar between Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic are:

1) Both have tremendous return of serves (ATG's in this department) and they have a similar style when returning.

2) Both have equally (or close to) good backhands which are one of their main strengths. Again, both have a similar technique with their backhand as well.

3) Both are tremendous defensive players and counter punchers. Using a combination of agility, flexibility and quick acceleration, both are able to return balls back in play that no one else in the world could (Andy Murray might be slightly better in this department).

4) Both are excellent baseliners with the ability to grind out wins and outplay nearly any opponent from the baseline through point constructions

Some of the things which are strikingly similar between Andy Murray and Roger Federer are:

1) Both have tremendous slices, especially with the back hand.

2) Both have two of the best drop shots in tennis today and for the last few years.

3) For both, grass court happens to be their favorite surface where they play their best tennis.

4) Both are generally much better on faster surfaces than on slower surfaces as both are better at using the pace of the ball to return during ground strokes and opponent's serves than generating their own pace. This requires excellent hand eye coordination, reflexes and timing for both.

5) Both are two of the most versatile players that possess multiple plans throughout their matches. This makes them both two of the best tacticians in tennis and subsequently gives them the ability to adjust / adapt to different opponents. Both can play with finesse, soft touches, hard shots, volleys, from the baseline, with different amount of spins / power and etc.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
7xmc9ki.gif
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
He's a lesser version of Djokovic.

Except for the fact that all three play tennis, neither of the other two has anything meaningful in common with Federer.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
I can't see any similarity with Federer except they both have a good slice.

He's like a lesser version of Djokovic but with no FH, no second serve, weaker BH.
 

Shank Volley

Hall of Fame
Murray is basically what you'd get if you tried to make a custom Novak Djokovic in Topspin 4, but you took a few points out of the forehand and serve to put into the 'hair' category.

images


*bleep bloop levelling up hair, levelling down tennis ability*

images
 

TennisATP

Professional
When analyzing Andy Murray's tennis abilities and style, it's blatantly obvious and clear to see how some of his strengths and the things he's good at / does well are what both Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic generally specialize in.

Some the things which are strikingly similar between Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic are:

1) Both have tremendous return of serves (ATG's in this department) and they have a similar style when returning.

2) Both have equally (or close to) good backhands which are one of their main strengths. Again, both have a similar technique with their backhand as well.

3) Both are tremendous defensive players and counter punchers. Using a combination of agility, flexibility and quick acceleration, both are able to return balls back in play that no one else in the world could (Andy Murray might be slightly better in this department).

4) Both are excellent baseliners with the ability to grind out wins and outplay nearly any opponent from the baseline through point constructions

Some of the things which are strikingly similar between Andy Murray and Roger Federer are:

1) Both have tremendous slices, especially with the back hand.

2) Both have two of the best drop shots in tennis today and for the last few years.

3) For both, grass court happens to be their favorite surface where they play their best tennis.

4) Both are generally much better on faster surfaces than on slower surfaces as both are better at using the pace of the ball to return during ground strokes and opponent's serves than generating their own pace. This requires excellent hand eye coordination, reflexes and timing for both.

5) Both are two of the most versatile players that possess multiple plans throughout their matches. This makes them both two of the best tacticians in tennis and subsequently gives them the ability to adjust / adapt to different opponents. Both can play with finesse, soft touches, hard shots, volleys, from the baseline, with different amount of spins / power and etc.

Excellent analysis and points, and very well written I must say. These 3 players are very similar in so many ways, they could be brothers. This thread is also a reminder on how special and different Nadal is. He is very unique. All 4 players are great, we are lucky.
 

Shank Volley

Hall of Fame
I don't find Andy to be similar to either one of the other two.

I can see the similarities between Murray and Djokovic but it's a bit like saying I'm very similar to bodybuilder era Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yes, we both have visited a gym. He's just done it a few thousand times more than me.

If you were playing Taboo a great way of describing any of Djokovic's shots would be by saying "Like Andy Murray's [insert game element], but better."
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
I can see the similarities between Murray and Djokovic but it's a bit like saying I'm very similar to bodybuilder era Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yes, we both have visited a gym. He's just done it a few thousand times more than me.

If you were playing Taboo a great way of describing any of Djokovic's shots would be by saying "Like Andy Murray's [insert game element], but better."
Well that's the thing, I wouldn't begin the describing by saying "Like Andy Murray's". For me they aren't similar in hitting or in playing style. It feels like some of their less interesting matches contributed heavily to people thinking that.
 

existential dread

Professional
Are hybrids always necessarily better though? I think we unquestionably answer in the yes but if it's like: "a little bit a good from here, a little bit a good from there and botta-boom - better!" I'm not quite sure.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
No hybrid of either Fed or Djoker has only three majors at the age of 30. He's nowhere near as great as either player, as his results eloquently prove.
 

Rozroz

G.O.A.T.
No hybrid of either Fed or Djoker has only three majors at the age of 30. He's nowhere near as great as either player, as his results eloquently prove.

that is the truth. and also, i don't believe peak Murray would be as dominating as today 10 years ago. i've seen lots of 2004/7 highlights this week, and the tour was tougher with Fed dominating easily.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Aside from his obvious inferiority in skill in comparison to Fed or Novak, Andy has almost nothing in common with Fed. Roger is an attacking player, is aggressive, will come forward, volleys pretty well and his serve is superior to Murray. Andy has more velocity on the serve, but inferior placement and disguise.

Murray is a defensive baseliner who plays safe, percentage tennis and waits for his opponent's error. The things Andy does better than Roger? ROS, lob and forward movement (though in his peak, Fed was as fast as Muzz). Comparing Fed and Andy is like comparing McEnroe to Lendl. Two completely different playing styles.
 
Z

Zara

Guest
No hybrid of either Fed or Djoker has only three majors at the age of 30. He's nowhere near as great as either player, as his results eloquently prove.

Murray has only 3 Majors because he doesn't have the same attitude and mentality as both Fed and Djokovic have and that's the only difference that holds Murray back from winning more. Keep in mind Murray made many finals so had he won at least a few of them he would have looked much better. Someone said somewhere in some thread if Murray would win as many slams as Federer did between 2003-2007. I'd say he wouldn't have because, even though he would have been better than the rest of the field, he wouldn't have the same mindset as Federer. Federer was simply following Sampras' footstep (wanted to be great, break records etc) whereas Murray was never a fan of Sampras; therefore, never had that kind of intention. He was more into Agassi, so my guess is, he would have won a few during that time, may be 6/7. Otherwise his game holds up pretty well, he just plays different types of tennis perhaps closer to Djokovic but he does have similar slices and drop shots as Federer.
 
Z

Zara

Guest
Aside from his obvious inferiority in skill in comparison to Fed or Novak, Andy has almost nothing in common with Fed. Roger is an attacking player, is aggressive, will come forward, volleys pretty well and his serve is superior to Murray. Andy has more velocity on the serve, but inferior placement and disguise.

Murray is a defensive baseliner who plays safe, percentage tennis and waits for his opponent's error. The things Andy does better than Roger? ROS, lob and forward movement (though in his peak, Fed was as fast as Muzz). Comparing Fed and Andy is like comparing McEnroe to Lendl. Two completely different playing styles.

Or you could say Murray lets his opponents self destruct.

Btw, Murray's got great touch at the net - all Comms agree. He just doesn't come in as much because he loves being a baseliner. It's a matter of choice for him.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Murray has only 3 Majors because he doesn't have the same attitude and mentality as both Fed and Djokovic have and that's the only difference that holds Murray back from winning more. Keep in mind Murray made many finals so had he won at least a few of them he would have looked much better. Someone said somewhere in some thread if Murray would win as many slams as Federer did between 2003-2007. I'd say he wouldn't have because, even though he would have been better than the rest of the field, he wouldn't have the same mindset as Federer. Federer was simply following Sampras' footstep (wanted to be great, break records etc) whereas Murray was never a fan of Sampras; therefore, never had that kind of intention. He was more into Agassi, so my guess is, he would have won a few during that time, may be 6/7. Otherwise his game holds up pretty well, he just plays different types of tennis perhaps closer to Djokovic but he does have similar slices and drop shots as Federer.


Murray only has three majors primarily because his second serve isn't as good as theirs (even Nadal's is better), and his first serve is erratic. He's only crossed the 85% of service games won barrier twice. There are limitations to his game that play a pretty massive role in determining his standing amongst the four.
 
Last edited:
Z

Zara

Guest
Murray only has three majors because his second serve isn't as good as theirs (even Nadal's is better), and his first serve is erratic. He's only crossed the 85% of service games won barrier twice. There are limitations to his game that play a pretty massive role to his standing amongst the four.

When Andy is confident, he serves quite well but crumbles under pressure in big matches like the slam finals. Nadal or Djokovic are far more confident in that regard so their game tend to hold up well under those circumstances.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
When Andy is confident, he serves quite well but crumbles under pressure in big matches like the slam finals. Nadal or Djokovic are far more confident in that regard so their game tend to hold up well under those circumstances.


The problem is that even when Murray is in the best form of his life, his second serve is still average at best..and his first serve is erratic no matter the opponent, as evidenced by the first serve %'s being pretty much the same regardless of opponent rank (f.e, his first serve
% in his 183 career matches against the top 10 is 57.6, not terribly far off his overall 58.1% in all matches. It can't all be mental).
 
Z

Zara

Guest
The problem is that even when Murray is in the best form of his life, his second serve is still average at best..and his first serve is erratic no matter the opponent, as evidenced by the first serve %'s being pretty much the same regardless of opponent rank (f.e, his first serve
% in his 183 career matches against the top 10 is 57.6, not terribly far off his overall 58.1% in all matches. It can't all be mental).

It's mostly mental. When Andy doesn't feel confident, he struggles a great deal to hold his service games. So he has to rely on rest of his game where he feels confident or at least feels he'd be able to hold up. His service game doesn't give that many opportunities or doesn't give him the opportunity to prolong the game. You get only two chances so it's the riskiest part of the game where confidence is required -it's a must. You won't be able to toy around it and that makes Andy nervous.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
It's mostly mental. When Andy doesn't feel confident, he struggles a great deal to hold his service games. So he has to rely on rest of his game where he feels confident or at least feels he'd be able to hold up. His service game doesn't give that many opportunities or doesn't give him the opportunity to prolong the game. You get only two chances so it's the riskiest part of the game where confidence is required -it's a must. You won't be able to toy around it and that makes Andy nervous.

But his serve is flawed from a mechanical standpoint too, be it during match-play or on the practice courts. See here:

https://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tour_strokes/john_yandell/murray_serve/

The lack of internal shoulder rotation is pretty much a death knell to Murray's serve and limits the amount of spin he can put on it (to illustrate, a guy like Federer generally averages about 2500 RPMs on the first and 4800 RPMs on the second; it's about 2000 and 4000 for Murray). That it's even halfway decent is a testament to his strength and timing.

Another thing is that Murray hits the flattest forehand of the big 4 w/the lowest net clearance by a country mile, yet it has the least pace of any of the big 4. So, not heavy OR pacy (again, this is relative to the big 4). Something has to give.


See here:

EsVokcc.jpg


And here:

http://on-the-t.com/2016/11/26/aoleaderboard-forehand-speed/

(and I know that is only one tournament, but in every tournament I've ever seen, Murray has been on the lower end, including this years RG).


The other 3 all have dangerous forehands, with 2 of those forehands being on the shortlist of GOAT shots. There's really no sense in calling it all or primarily mental. Murray has obvious limitations in his game, limitations that extend far beyond mental fragility.
 
Last edited:

TennisATP

Professional
In a way, if you mix the colors silver and bronze, you do get the color gold. :p:) Omg maybe Murray is indeed a Federer & Djokovic hybrid. :eek::D

Please take this with a little bit of fun, it's probably Murray's only bragging right. :cool:
 
Z

Zara

Guest
But his serve is flawed from a mechanical perspective too, be it in match-play or on the practice courts. See here:

https://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tour_strokes/john_yandell/murray_serve/

The lack of internal shoulder rotation is pretty much a death knell to Murray's serve and limits the amount of spin he can put on it (to illustrate, a guy like Federer generally averages about 2500 RPMs on the first and 4800 RPMs on the second; it's about 2000 and 4000 for Murray). That it's even halfway decent is a testament to his strength and timing.

Another thing is that Murray hits the flattest forehand of the big 4 w/the lowest net clearance by a country mile, yet it has the least pace of any of the big 4. So, not heavy OR pacy (again, this is relative to the big 4). Something has to give.


See here:

EsVokcc.jpg


And here:

http://on-the-t.com/2016/11/26/aoleaderboard-forehand-speed/

(and I know that is only one tournament, but in every tournament I've ever seen, Murray has been on the lower end, including this years RG).


The other 3 all have dangerous forehands, with 2 of those forehands being on the shortlist of GOAT shots. There's really no sense in calling it all or primarily mental. Murray has obvious limitations in his game, limitations that extend far beyond mental fragility.

It's actually quite simple. The serves aren't Andy's strength. And that's precisely why it crumbles under pressure because he lacks confidence. The reason why Sampras was able to go for aces on his second because that was his strength. We can't ask Sampras to return better but if he were to under those circumstances, he wouldn't have the same confidence as the serves.

Nadal has a great forehand, true but he doesn't have Andy's variety. But what makes Nadal more successful is the fact that he's fearless. In other words, he doesn't lack confidence even when he doesn't have many weapons in his arsenal. What he has, he makes the most out of it.

Djokovic is also mentally very, very tough. The moment he let lose the mental side of the game, he started sliding really, really fast, case in point. The mental aspect of things is the key to succeed supremely. You may be well equipped but you don't have a wise head then it's all pointless. Your mind gives you the direction, it's the captain of the ship.

Federer almost has the perfect game and yet so many times he crumbled mentally against Nadal and Djokovic.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
It's actually quite simple. The serves aren't Andy's strength. And that's precisely why it crumbles under pressure because he lacks confidence. The reason why Sampras was able to go for aces on his second because that was his strength. We can't ask Sampras to return better but if he were to under those circumstances, he wouldn't have the same confidence as the serves.

Nadal has a great forehand, true but he doesn't have Andy's variety. But what makes Nadal more successful is the fact that he's fearless. In other words, he doesn't lack confidence even when he doesn't have many weapons in his arsenal. What he has, he makes the most out of it.

Djokovic is also mentally very, very tough. The moment he let lose the mental side of the game, he started sliding really, really fast, case in point. The mental aspect of things is the key to succeed supremely. You may be well equipped but you don't have a wise head then it's all pointless. Your mind gives you the direction, it's the captain of the ship.

Federer almost has the perfect game and yet so many times he crumbled mentally against Nadal and Djokovic.

Well, I'm learning that no amount of data can unravel a fanciful narrative. Even deconstructing the two shots of his that are arguably the most important in the men's game won't do it.

No offense, but we were probably at an impasse before we even began. My fault.
 
Z

Zara

Guest
Well, I'm learning that no amount of data can unravel a fanciful narrative. No offense.

Sorry but data doesn't take the subjective things into account like the mental part; therefore, it's not complete.
 
Top