why was/is murray a top player?

[tom-selleck]

just a curiousity question......... i can plainly see why federer/nadal are top players and a with a little digging and some visual evidence, i have a very good idea why djokovic is so great.

but i could never figure out murray. and i'd seen him live a couple of times when he was youngish on tour. found his game very very loose.

what were murray's strengths?......... i will note that federer/nadal/djokovic are all a good mixture of offense (counter-punch offense too) and defense and not incredibly large. alot of other players tend towards big/small and offense/defense, clay/fast etc etc.

thx in advance. ........ p.s. just a curiousity question. obviously murray is an outstanding player

 

[Fridge]

He can push better than anyone else

 

[Midaso240]

Return,backhand,movement,touch/net play,lobs. Had to be top 5 in all those categories at his peak...

 

[GrassCourtFan]

I think it's an excellent question, and IMO it really highlights why tennis viewers are terrible judges of talent. I can think of two things in which Murray was exceptional, definitely among the top few players in the world with Nadal/Fed/Djok.

1) Murray's return is incredible. I've watched him play Ivo Karlovic, ON GRASS - he was picking up Karlovic's monster serves and putting them right back at Ivo's feet. This isn't very obvious when watching him play against other players, because "he puts 10-15% more returns in than most other players could do" doesn't look flashy or unusual. But it wins points.

2) Because he's fast, and has good footwork and balance to set up for the ball when on the run. Again, by itself this doesn't look flashy! It just looks like a normal rally, you don't see that Murray's made something that would be a winner against other players into a defensive rally ball for him.

 

[Slightly D1]

He won majors and had a lot of success when having to play in an era dominated by the 3 greatest tennis players ever.

 

[ibbi]

He worked harder than everybody else? Andy Murray was a scrawny, ratty boy who couldn't make it through a 5 set match, Gasquet was the chosen one, guys like Tsonga and Monfils had so much more swagger, but Murray worked his butt off till he was one of the strongest, fittest guys on tour, and then developed the rest from there. The dude clearly had a desire to be the best even when he was a long way from being so. I remember his body failing him at Wimbledon and the US Open in 2005, and already a year later he was outlasting Gonzalez in 5.

 

[gullyfoyleisback]

He can push better than anyone else

Never got this pusher thing, think about it will you.
In order to successfully push the ball around it requires the opponent to push back until one or other makes an error,
or the ball is put back to an advantageous position for one of the “pushers“ to put the ball back into an unplayable position, it takes two to tango.
Further if the “pusher“ returns the ball into a position the other “pusher“ cannot return for a “winner“
he “pushes“ the ball back to await a better opportunity, the only sure fire winners are aces, so if you want a really boring game that doesn’t involve some pushing then watch Karlovic play Isner, me I would rather watch paint dry.

 

[Tshooter]

... I remember his body failing him at Wimbledon and the US Open in 2005, and already a year later he was outlasting Gonzalez in 5.

He cramped up badly against Clement in 2005 (old Grandstand). By 2006 he was working with Gilbert but his conditioning still wasn’t where it needed to be for the Majors. He couldn’t last at the 2006 USO either. I was at the Gonzo match (old Grandstand ) and he did well to outlast Gonzo but he was spent. The next round against Davy (old Armstrong) I thought he would be fresh on day two (rain) and turn the match around but instead he lost the last set 6-0. That was two years in a row he went away with a bagel in the last set primarily due to fitness.

Anyway, he did work very hard to get into shape but to me that is necessary but in no way sufficient to make any headway at a Major. He had weapons (return, BH, movement, solid 1st serve): he was a brilliant tactician; great feel; great competitor; feminist.

He only comes up short when compared to three GOATs.

 

[oldmanfan]

Look at the last 10 years' predominant gamestyle. Murray has been better than almost everyone in those aspects. AND he has more on top of that. That's why he's a top player .

 

[travlerajm]

Value of 400SW underrated.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He's like a modern day Michael Chang.

 

[metsman]

BH, return, movement, consistency were all top 3 in the world at his best (top 2 most of the time). Probably had about a top 10-15 first serve on tour as well if not better. Those are pretty big time weapons against the vast majority of players, but he lacked super high end weapons. His weaknesses (lack of point dictating FH, first serve% and 2nd serve, lack of great offensive footwork, lack of depth on returns and strokes in general) were exposed when he played in form top guys. He's also a bit fortunate that the general variance of level on tour greatly decreased in the big 4 era as he's prone to hot players who can dictate off the baseline and crunch his 2nd serve (look at his 09 losses in slams as a prime example).

Visually, his feel for the game always impressed me, but he just lacked super high end weapons to get it done against the best. Tsitsipas actually falls into sort of the same boat although he'll likely never be close to as good as Murray's best.

 

[gullyfoyleisback]

He's like a modern day Michael Chang.

Only better.

 

[metsman]

He's like a modern day Michael Chang.

Chang with more power and a much better first serve is a good comparison, although Chang was a little better defensively. Murray's peak off clay is definitely better.

Hewitt I think was a better pure ball striker than Murray but they do have many of the same strengths and weaknesses. Murray with Hewitt's ballstriking/offensive footwork capabilities or Hewitt with Murray's power and first serve is probably an ATG caliber player.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Chang with more power and a much better first serve is a good comparison, although Chang was a little better defensively. Murray's peak off clay is definitely better.

Hewitt I think was a better pure ball striker than Murray but they do have many of the same strengths and weaknesses. Murray with Hewitt's ballstriking/offensive footwork capabilities or Hewitt with Murray's power and first serve is probably an ATG caliber player.

Hewitt had a decent amount of power in '05 and that was the year he was starting to give Federer tough matches. Murray was blessed with better genetics than Lleyton when it comes to building muscle but both got screwed over that way too when it comes to injuries.

When I compare Murray and Hewitt it's not so much about their abilities or what they could achieve, it's that I find their games very similar.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Only better.

Of course. But I see similarities in their movement/game-style.

 

[Tshooter]

Murray-GOAT

/thread

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray-GOAT

/thread