The reason Andy Murray hasn't won more slams

[christos_liaskos]

I joined this forum in 2006 after Andre retired, but I eventually got bored of it and haven't posted for at least three years I think. Partly got bored with all the arguing. Anyways, after thinking about different players' records in slam finals, something occurred to me that I thought was worth posting in here.

There always seem to be so many complaints about how Murray "never wins", and always loses to the others in the top four and that he isn't on their level. Then it occurred to me, well yes, Andy has only ever played one of the big four (precisely Roger and Novak) in every slam final he has ever played (including the two he won against Novak - which people seem to forget when they say how terrible Andy is).

So I thought about it, who did the others in the top four (Roger, Rafa and Novak) face in their slam first slam finals, and more importantly who did they beat to break their grand slam duck?

Roger - played Mark Philipoussis to win Wimbledon back in 2003. Whilst Mark had been to slam final before, losing to Rafter in the 2008 US Open final, he hadn't had a stellar career, and wasn't a slam champion. Roger went in as the favourite, or at least he certainly wasn't playing a major force in the game, and he won his first slam in his first final. The rest is history.

Rafa - played Mariano Puerta in his first slam final back at RG in 2005. Puerta ranked in the 30's at the time and Rafa in the top 10 and already a major force on clay. Result - Rafa wins his first slam in is first final against someone who again was not a major name in the sport. The rest is history.

Novak - a slight difference here in that when he won his first title at the Aussie in 2008, it wasn't his first final, it was actually his second in a row, having lost at the 2007 US Open to Roger. But his opponent in Australia wasn't Roger or Rafa, the big names in the sport, rather a player who was just arriving on the scene at the time in Jo Wilfred Tsonga - who as we know, the very respectable professional career that he has had, he isn't on the same level as the top 4. Result - Novak won his first slam and the rest is history.

So now we get to Andy, the perennial grand slam final loser, the almost, nearly there guy, but not quite on the same level as his Roger, Novak and Rafa. So, in Andy's first final, he already faces a major hurdle, unlike Roger, Rafa and Novak did, in the form of a multiple slam champion in Federer in the 2008 US Open final. Result - Andy loses.
In his next slam final, who does Andy face? Roger again in the 2010 Aussie final - result Andy loses (murmurs and whispers start).
Third slam final - faces Novak, a slam champion already on his favourite surface in Australia, at the beginning of what is Novak's best year to date and coming off a 2010 where Novak was only second best to Rafa. Result - Andy loses (Andy can't win everyone says).

So, as we have seen Roger, Novak and Rafa managed faced fairly easy opponents in their first slam finals (relatively of course - these guys are still pros at the top of the game), whereas Andy faced slam champions, not only in his first final, but every final he has ever played. Of course there is no way of knowing for sure, but I am sure most would agree, that had Andy faced an easier opponent in one of his first slam finals, he may well have won. Then, going into a final against another one of the top 4 as a slam champion himself and not under pressure to break his duck, he may well have won more than he has done against them in finals, never mind winning other slams where he wasn't even facing them.

And there is more evidence that Rafa, Roger and Novak have had it a little easier in their careers of amassing slam titles.

Until his current barren spell of not winning a slam, the longest Roger had been without winning a title previously was going into Wimbledon 2012, two and half years since his previous slam - his opponent? Murray, already under so much pressure having yet to win his first slam and huge home pressure to win Wimbledon. Result - Roger win.

Novak's longest barren spell is between his wins at the Aussie in 2008 and 2011. Who did he face to break his run without a slam? Murray, who had already lost his first two slam finals at that point and had yet to taste victory so was still not relieved of the pressure. Result - Novak wins and goes on his best year to date.

Going into the French Open of 2010, Rafa had had a tough year in 2009, despite beating Roger to win his first Aussie, he had lost for the first time at RG and then struggled with injury for the rest of the year. So, what better way to build confidence and to go on to have your best year to date in 2010 than play an opponent who hadn't won a slam and wasn't on the same level as Roger and Novak. Playing Soderling in the French final, Rafa takes the win and goes on amazing run in 2010 and in 2011 is just as good except Novak steps ahead.

So, Roger, Rafa and Novak have not only won their first slams against lesser opponents in the finals that they played, once they had suffered set back and losses of confidence, they broke barren spells by again facing opponents without their own slam titles.

Its worth taking this even further in suggesting that the first win for Roger came on his favourite surface - grass, and his win to break his barren spell - on his favourite surface of grass.
Rafa won his first title on his favourite surface - clay, and broke his barren streak on, clay.
Novak won his first title on his favourite surface, a slow hard court in Australia, and his second slam to break his barren spell? Back down under again in Austrialia.
In all these cases against lesser opponents, not at the level of the big four. Of course in the case of the surfaces the argument could be made that well, Andy should have a specialist surface. The point is though that everything fell in place for Roger, Rafa and Novak, whereas it clearly hasn't done for Andy.

Had Murray had better luck in who he had played in finals, I believe he would have won titles in Australia, Wimbledon and the US Open had he played anyone other than the rest of the top four. This would of course have increased his slam count and would also have given him more confidence when going into those finals against Roger, Novak and Rafa. Instead, he really did break new ground by managing to break his duck by beating Novak in both his slam wins. Del Potro and Wawrinka are the only other guys outside the top four to beat one of them in a final, but haven't exactly been able to join them at the top of the game. Wawrinka is the only one to win a Masters in addition.

Which takes me on to one more, final, point. Novak's first win in a Masters Series? Miami (slow hard) 2007 against Guillermo Canas. Rafa's first win in a Masters? Monte Carlo (clay) 2005 against Guillermo Coria. Roger's first Masters win? Hamburg 2002 against Safin - admittedly a tough opponent in the shape of a slam champion and former no1. Andy's first win? Against Novak in Cincy in 2008.

So, I think it can be seen here that Andy is far from a headcase and less talented even than the other top guys. He's just been extremely unlucky in many cases. And in order to break his duck he has had to beat the best, and he has managed to stay up there with them.

Anyways, long post for my first one back in a few years. If you have made it this far, discuss .

 

[Rebel-I.N.S]

Good post.

Agree with most of your points.

 

[SLD76]

Bad luck Andy. Still, there is mental gap between Murray and the other three.

 

[christos_liaskos]

Bad luck Andy. Still, there is mental gap between Murray and the other three.

Which is what my post is aimed at. That gap has developed in a large part due to the experiences he has had. Had he had an easy start, he would have had less pressure when facing the other guys in finals, and may well have a better record against them. He losses to them more than not, but he dominates the rest of the tour more than not, as reflected by his ranking.
Roger, Rafa and Novak have lost to none slam champions in finals, Andy hasn't, most likely wouldn't do.

 

[RunDatGame]

Well, in AO 2008 Novak actually beat Federer in semis after losing to him before that in USO 2007 final. He created his own luck for his first slam, and hasn't got any luckier in the future. He had it tough also but i agree with almost everything you said, Andy was very unfortunate with these 3 all time greats.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The same thing can be attributed to many different players..

Look at Andy Roddick. One man totalled his whole career.

But by getting rid of the "great" player you aren't guaranteeing a win. Look at Wawrinka at the Australian Open last year for instance.

 

[Mustard]

Let's not forget that Nadal did beat Federer in the semi finals of the 2005 French Open, before he beat Puerta in the final.

 

[tennisaddict]

Andy Murray's brand of tennis cannot win big matches consistently against the Big 3.

That is the bottom line. He needs to re-tool / change strategy to reverse the tide.

 

[christos_liaskos]

Well, in AO 2008 Novak actually beat Federer in semis after losing to him before that in USO 2007 final. He created his own luck for his first slam, and hasn't got any luckier in the future. He had it tough also but i agree with almost everything you said, Andy was very unfortunate with these 3 all time greats.

Andy has beaten Rafa, Roger and Novak in slams. Beat Rafa in 2008 US Open only to face Federer in the final. Roger in Australia only to play Novak in the final (admittedly Andy had won a slam at this point), and Novak in his two finals to actually win slams. But yes, I still take your point that Novak did make his luck in 2008. I suppose you could say it was on Novak's favourite surface, and perhaps Roger's worst. But still credit to Novak for taking it on mentally back then.

 

[christos_liaskos]

Let's not forget that Nadal did beat Federer in the semi finals of the 2005 French Open, before he beat Puerta in the final.

Agreed. I suppose I would make the same reply as the one about Novak beating Roger in Australia in 2008 . But even more significant in this case. Even then, with Rafa without slams, many would have made Rafa the favourite in that semi. He was so mature for his age, and it was already clear that his game made it tough for Roger. Still, credit to Rafa

 

[christos_liaskos]

I suppose I'd add to my replies to Mustard and Rundatgame also that there were two parts to take into account in Andy's finals. One was winning a slam for the first time, and the other was beating a top player who had already won a slam, both in one match, in a final. In Rafa and Novak beating Roger on the way to winning their first titles, yes they beat Roger on the way, but it wasn't to win the title. When it came to winning the title in the final, the part where Andy struggled so much, they only had the pressure of breaking their duck to deal with. Not the fact that they had to beat a slam champion, or even an all time great in order to do it.

 

[christos_liaskos]

The same thing can be attributed to many different players..

Look at Andy Roddick. One man totalled his whole career.

But by getting rid of the "great" player you aren't guaranteeing a win. Look at Wawrinka at the Australian Open last year for instance.

Love that phrase, one man totalled his career . I'm not suggesting getting rid of anyone, just that Roger, Rafa and Novak where lucky to face a lesser challenge in a final in order to win their first title. No doubt Roddick would have had similar results too if he wasn't unlucky enough to get Roger over and over.

 

[dh003i]

I suppose I'd add to my replies to Mustard and Rundatgame also that there were two parts to take into account in Andy's finals. One was winning a slam for the first time, and the other was beating a top player who had already won a slam, both in one match, in a final. In Rafa and Novak beating Roger on the way to winning their first titles, yes they beat Roger on the way, but it wasn't to win the title. When it came to winning the title in the final, the part where Andy struggled so much, they only had the pressure of breaking their duck to deal with. Not the fact that they had to beat a slam champion, or even an all time great in order to do it.

It's true there is a difference beating Federer in a Major on your way to your first Major win (Nadal, Djokovic) and beating him to win your first Major (Del Potro is the only guy to have beaten Roger to win his first Major).

That said, Murray's biggest problem was he was just content to play a defensive game.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Love that phrase, one man totalled his career . I'm not suggesting getting rid of anyone, just that Roger, Rafa and Novak where lucky to face a lesser challenge in a final in order to win their first title. No doubt Roddick would have had similar results too if he wasn't unlucky enough to get Roger over and over.

In a way they were luckier, but I don't feel Murray would have benefited as much as you say.

He is an off and on player. A player who plays to the occasion and is satisfied when he is done. A mentality between that of Safin and Roddick. He is not mentally weak, but he is mentally satisfied when a given task is completed.

So who knows how great he may have ended up being if given an easy slam finalist for his first final.

 

[BGod]

Listen, casual fans are always going to have loosely substantiated opinions.

It is what it is.

Murray beats Tsonga in 2010 AO. But other than that there's really no realistic scenario he gets an opponent outside of the big 3, it's his generation.

I'm not calling Murray a choking dog and frankly his 2 Slams are a good resume to me. But wanting anything more is in the Andy Roddick department.

 

[tistrapukcipeht]

Andy Murray has evolved a lot despite his back injury last year, I will give some credit to Mauresmo, because she made him more aggressive player, He hits more winners or pressure more than He used too.

He is mentally weaker than the other 3 , that's why He doesn't (won't) win as many, because the other 3 are legends of the sport, when do you get to have 3 of the best ever in one generation?

So, all others will have to deal with them and beat them to win.

To be honest, anyone who won majors while Rafa/Roger/Djokovic played are just as good as some of these older guys that never dealt with these 3 greats.

So Murray is a great player, not greater because of the big 3.

 

[daddy]

Yes, There was Roger and he took it away form the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and so on ... Then Rafa was able to bring it to Roger and challenge even on Rog's fav surfaces and practically no big clay court specialists made his life easier. He was able to bag a RG every year and then fight for everything else. Then came Novak and he struggled but eventually fought his way through Roger and Rafa and not only in the 2008. AO where he took out a sublime Roger in semis but he established himself as a force to be reckoned with in 2011. with now famous streak of wins.

And I do agree, Andy blooming latter than Nole had even more of a challenge to get slams. This is all facts, no bias. Was he unlucky? Well obviously a big YES. But he is still mentally weakest of the big four. Why? Well, OP got things the wrong way. He should have established his dominance on smaller tournaments, winning a bunch of master series and stuff like that, and then he could have taken that form into slams and transform it into Roger like 2004/06 domination or Novak like 2011/15 domination or Rafa like 2008/13 domination. He simply did noting such and there were chances, periods of time when neither of the other 3 were at their absolute best or near it, but neither was Andy.

That is my take on this matter. He can still do it, but I doubt.

 

[christos_liaskos]

Yes, There was Roger and he took it away form the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and so on ... Then Rafa was able to bring it to Roger and challenge even on Rog's fav surfaces and practically no big clay court specialists made his life easier. He was able to bag a RG every year and then fight for everything else. Then came Novak and he struggled but eventually fought his way through Roger and Rafa and not only in the 2008. AO where he took out a sublime Roger in semis but he established himself as a force to be reckoned with in 2011. with now famous streak of wins.

And I do agree, Andy blooming latter than Nole had even more of a challenge to get slams. This is all facts, no bias. Was he unlucky? Well obviously a big YES. But he is still mentally weakest of the big four. Why? Well, OP got things the wrong way. He should have established his dominance on smaller tournaments, winning a bunch of master series and stuff like that, and then he could have taken that form into slams and transform it into Roger like 2004/06 domination or Novak like 2011/15 domination or Rafa like 2008/13 domination. He simply did noting such and there were chances, periods of time when neither of the other 3 were at their absolute best or near it, but neither was Andy.

That is my take on this matter. He can still do it, but I doubt.

Andy has won plenty of Masters. And he reached no2 in the world in 2009, taking advantage when there was the chance as you say. He didn't just rock up to a slam final with no prior form like some other finalists. It wasn't a surprise that he reached slam finals. The point is that he faced pressures to win a great in order to break his duck at the slams, making it that much harder. For Roger, Novak and Rafa, in their first finals it was almost about just focusing on the occasion and winning the slam, and don't worry about the opponent on the other side of the net.
Andy has an excellent record against Roger, for a long time he had a winning h2h against him, and I'm guessing probably did going into some of their slam finals.

 

[Bukmeikara]

The reason why Murray hasnt won that manny Slams is that mentaly he is not as good as Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. Andy and Novak entered the tour pretty much at the same time and they had to fight the same opponents and obstacles. So we had two identical horses with the same potential and the same headstart but in the end the serbian horse won it with a big lead. You can call it luck but in my eyes Djokovic just wanted it more because of his personality and that is hardly luck. That "victory" of Novak over Murray make him the next in line after Federer and Nadal and his present 8 straight wins against the scott are probably direct result of it too.

Until 2010 Novak had more defeats against Rafa and Federer(Andy even had a positive H2H against Roger) so he probably had more doubts to overcome than Andy. You can make a case that Novak was fortuned to have good enough team mates to win Davis Cup which triggered his success. Same could be said for Murray and his home Slam but he failed to capitalize on it earlier than 2013. Same applies for the WTF. You have to earn your position at the very top. You say that Djokovic was "lucky" to face Tsonga for his first Slam win but the same Tsonga defeated both Murray and Nadal thaht tournament while being big underdog to take their place in the final.

 

[veroniquem]

It's not just mental. His 2nd serve is weak and he's not aggressive enough. It used to be compensated by a cutting edge 1st serve. But in recent times his 1st serve has regressed too which has caused him some problems in main events. He's trying to get it back to where it was. It's gonna be crucial for fast surfaces in 2nd part of the season (especially since some new young guys have heavy artillery serves like KG)

 

[christos_liaskos]

The reason why Murray hasnt won that manny Slams is that mentaly he is not as good as Federer, Djokovic and Nadal. Andy and Novak entered the tour pretty much at the same time and they had to fight the same opponents and obstacles. So we had two identical horses with the same potential and the same headstart but in the end the serbian horse won it with a big lead. You can call it luck but in my eyes Djokovic just wanted it more because of his personality and that is hardly luck. That "victory" of Novak over Murray make him the next in line after Federer and Nadal and his present 8 straight wins against the scott are probably direct result of it too.

Until 2010 Novak had more defeats against Rafa and Federer(Andy even had a positive H2H against Roger) so he probably had more doubts to overcome than Andy. You can make a case that Novak was fortuned to have good enough team mates to win Davis Cup which triggered his success. Same could be said for Murray and his home Slam but he failed to capitalize on it earlier than 2013. Same applies for the WTF. You have to earn your position at the very top. You say that Djokovic was "lucky" to face Tsonga for his first Slam win but the same Tsonga defeated both Murray and Nadal thaht tournament while being big underdog to take their place in the final.

And Tsonga entered that final unaware of how to deal with the situation, never mind what form he might have been in in putting a beatdown on Rafa in the semis. Being an inconsistent player, you couldn't count on Tsonga bringing the same form match after match either in the same way that you can almost guarantee that a member of the top four will. Andy faced guys in finals who were experienced and knew exactly what they were doing in that situation, and who you could guarantee would play well in that situation due to their pedigree.

 

[tennisaddict]

He should get coaches like Edberg, Becker and not Judy Murray and Mauresmo.

Lendl showed him how it is done. Murray had great strategy under him. But he does not play aggressive enough to repeat the success.

 

[heninfan99]

yeah but who did they defeat in their draws along the way?
I have Fed defeating Sampras at Wimby in 5 on DVD. It's remarkable. Murray would never have defeated Sampras, not in a million years.

Each of these players beat legends to become a legend.

 

[Bukmeikara]

And Tsonga entered that final unaware of how to deal with the situation, never mind what form he might have been in in putting a beatdown on Rafa in the semis. Being an inconsistent player, you couldn't count on Tsonga bringing the same form match after match either in the same way that you can almost guarantee that a member of the top four will. Andy faced guys in finals who were experienced and knew exactly what they were doing in that situation, and who you could guarantee would play well in that situation due to their pedigree.

Tsonga entered the final after he destroyed someone like Nadal. Given that Tsonga went to win 3-4 straight matches against Novak that year you can say that at the time Jo was feeling comfortable against Novak. Offcource there was pressure being in a first Slam F but the same applies for Djokovic as well. In 2006 Murray was 17th and Novak 16th in the ranking. Nole was able to up his game to improve his ranking and get a better draws including AO 08, it that luck too.

Head/tails, the longer you flip a coin the lower the varience and the amount of luck. Same applies in this case, the more tournaments they play, the more they take control of their own luck. You can make a case that Del Potro was unlucky because of his wrists but Murray had his chance to be in Novaks place and he didnt take it, not because of luck.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

I think OP makes some very valid and though provoking comments about the role of momentum, or in this case lack of momentum, and the impact it can have on a match and on a grander level a players career.

Considering only a week separates Murray and Djokovic it is interesting to speculate what might have been if Murray had faced Tsonga in his first final. We will of course never know, but I acknowledge momentum as playing a role in this drama along with conventional analysis of say Murray's weak second serve for example.

 

[daddy]

After reading a couple of other posts I would like to add that part of Novak's stability and strength is his team. Working for a long time with the same coach and just adding pieces to a puzzle. He sorted out health and stamina issues with diet and training, added musters coach to the team, sorted out technical issues like using his serve better playing higher percentage shots and volleying better and particularly choice of shots which used to be questionable, added becker to the team and through all that time became a different player especially mentally.

We always knew Andy's main issue was not his tennis. If you remember he used to annoy the hell out of Federer and when Fed said that he'd get nowhere with that kind of defensive play that he used to implement against him he was laughing. Turns out Fed was correct, Andy did not sort out the problems he had ( as opposed to Novak who did ) and you can see him talking to himself and falling apart in the 3rd or 5th sets like he did the last couple of meetings with Novak. Lendl knew that, worked on that part particularly and he made things right.

I bet if Andy had Ivan Lendl's head, he would have been on par with Lendl's achievements in tennis.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

High reaches it's peak at set 4. Unfortunately, he is now couch locked. Set 5 begins, but there is nothing left to get him high again. Andy is the one that ends up being smoked.

It was sad because he gave us hope this time. Encouraging signs even if it is yet another defeat to the Master.

 

[Cenarius]

Murray will win the FO-W-UO triple in 2016 !!!

 

[JanowiczJ]

Funny because since that final he only faced members of the top4 in Slam Finals. Well, until tomorrow.

 

[Mustard]

In the first set of the 2008 Australian Open final, Tsonga carried on where he had left off against Nadal.

 

[NatF]

Weak second serve + low first serve percentage relative to his best peers, a forehand that has often not been an aggressive enough shot and a really bad overhead. That and not performing his best in major finals are why he does not have more slams.

 

[christos_liaskos]

Quite obviously you can pick holes in his game. I'm hardly going to claim his game is flawless. I'm just putting another perspective across, and quite an important one at that I feel and one that I haven't heard mentioned before.

And going back to my original point about who he has faced, and adding the point about the holes in his game, the fact that he has got to those finals clearly shows that those issues are actually only something that Rafa, Novak and Roger have consistently been able to take advantage of and had he faced someone else in a final he would have most likely won, and gained confidence for when he went into finals against Rafa, Roger and Novak as a consequence of having won already.

Had Murray got a slam under his belt, by facing someone other than Roger Rafa and Novak in a previous slam final, I think he would have won Wimbledon 2012 as he wouldn't have had that pressure anymore of trying to win his first slam, but having to do it against an all time great in the process. I do take the point though that Novak has evolved his game more over the years and that is one problem for Andy. But I still think my initial point of this thread should not be overlooked.

 

[MatsPhilander]

Purely temperament.

 

[3fees]

Weak 2nd serve and poor placement,
He talks to himself too much instead of focusing on his game.
He needs a better coach, for mixed doubles he should win.
He needs better results in all M1k's warm up for Slams.

Cheers
3Fees

 

[NatF]

Quite obviously you can pick holes in his game. I'm hardly going to claim his game is flawless. I'm just putting another perspective across, and quite an important one at that I feel and one that I haven't heard mentioned before.

And going back to my original point about who he has faced, and adding the point about the holes in his game, the fact that he has got to those finals clearly shows that those issues are actually only something that Rafa, Novak and Roger have consistently been able to take advantage of and had he faced someone else in a final he would have most likely won, and gained confidence for when he went into finals against Rafa, Roger and Novak as a consequence of having won already.

Had Murray got a slam under his belt, by facing someone other than Roger Rafa and Novak in a previous slam final, I think he would have won Wimbledon 2012 as he wouldn't have had that pressure anymore of trying to win his first slam, but having to do it against an all time great in the process. I do take the point though that Novak has evolved his game more over the years and that is one problem for Andy. But I still think my initial point of this thread should not be overlooked.

Federer was just better in the Wimbledon 2012 final, I think Murray was better there in 2012 than 2013 - Djokovic just played bad in 2013 in the final. So I'm not sure if we can blame the occasion.

It's not a given he would beat anyone not named Federer/Nadal/Djokovic in a slam final. Just more likely. He has been unlucky with his slam opponents but I don't think he's head and shoulders above other 2 time winners to merit such a deep explanation.

 

[3fees]

Murray needs to get to No 2 and quit loafing around, he needs to dethrone Federer as No 2.

This should be Murray's Mission Impossible and then do it.

Cheers
3Fees

 

[sarmpas]

Let's not forget that Nadal did beat Federer in the semi finals of the 2005 French Open, before he beat Puerta in the final.

Are you really suggesting h2h Federer at the FO is a challenge for Nadal? Really!

 

[dunlop_fort_knox]

i think murray would have won the tournament if he didn't have to face djokovic. he had a tough draw. he was playing well enough to beat anyone else. he's very close to novak's level. very close. no disgrace in that at all. I think murray is the betting favortie for wimbledon right now.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Are you really suggesting h2h Federer at the FO is a challenge for Nadal? Really!

Are you really suggesting that the greatest player of all time in his peak years is not a challenge for a 18 years old kid in a Slam SF ?

 

[Boom-Boom]

Bad luck Andy. Still, there is mental gap between Murray and the other three.

Mental gap + huge forehand and second serve gap with Big3.

 

[sarmpas]

Are you really suggesting that the greatest player of all time in his peak years is not a challenge for a 18 years old kind in a Slam SF ?

The h2h score doesn't 'suggest', it's evidence of how they match up h2h.

 

[Bukmeikara]

The h2h score doesn't 'suggest', it's evidence of how they match up h2h.

So if you marry the most beautifull and classy girl in your town does this make her an easy pick for anyone? Bottom line, what Nadal did to Federer it may seem easy on the TV but only very few names in this sport history are capable to reach that kind of level to stop that kind of player.

 

[Mainad]

He should get coaches like Edberg, Becker and not Judy Murray and Mauresmo.

Judy Murray hasn't coached him since he was a kid. His current coaches are Amelie Mauresmo and Jonas Bjorkman (Bjorkman will take over full time when Mauresmo goes on maternity leave).

Lendl showed him how it is done. Murray had great strategy under him. But he does not play aggressive enough to repeat the success.

You mean he does not play aggressive enough for long enough against Djokovic?
There may be a grain of truth in that but Djokovic is pretty much unbeatable at the moment (like Serena is for the women). Murray plays aggressive enough against everybody else. Only Djokovic is beating him at the moment just like he is beating everybody else!

 

[killerboi2]

Djokovic is pretty much unbeatable at the moment

The more Murray becomes Djokovic's wipping boy, the lamer that excuse gets. Murray is clearly the 2nd best player in the world at the moment (whatever the rankings say) and the difference between him and Djokovic should not be this big.

 

[Mainad]

The more Murray becomes Djokovic's wipping boy, the lamer that excuse gets. Murray is clearly the 2nd best player in the world at the moment (whatever the rankings say) and the difference between him and Djokovic should not be this big.

A difference as big as 1 set, you mean?

 

[OhYes]

So Andy won his first and most important against Novak, yet when he faces Novak lately, he just can't remember what he was doing back then.
Could you just stick to the good coach who really helped Andy ? Why did Ivan Lendl abandon ship ?

 

[TennisManiac]

Andy has a weak mind. When things aren't going his way or things get tough he folds. It happens every time.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

Andy has a weak mind. When things aren't going his way or things get tough he folds. It happens every time.

But that's his point, that's partly due to the baptism of fire earlier in his career where unlike the other 3 who played less decorated players in their first big finals where they would possibly be the favourite, whereas he has had to play all time greats in finals where he was not expected to win, so when he hasn't won it adds to the doubts which partly account for his weaker mental game.

 

[Mainad]

Andy has a weak mind. When things aren't going his way or things get tough he folds. It happens every time.

Weren't things getting tough enough for him when he lost the first 2 sets? Yet he came back to win the next 2!

 

[xan]

haven't read the thread, bar opening post.
this has been brought before, I believe mainad was the one to mention it.
no matter how much people think Novak had it hard competing with Federer and Nadal, Andy actually had it worse, having all 3 hurdles to overcome.
although (1 could argue Novak also had Murray) main difference is that one "made it"