Andy´s future and his run for no. 1

All tennis experts discuss Andy´s great future and many won GS and becoming no. 1. My view is different, I can not see Andy as no. 1 for a longer period. I see him struggle and lose in some early rounds with some runners. He does not have a game to outplay grinders easily, this will get him down soon. As a high favorite he can not meet a big expectation from fans to see him as a great player and they will be dissapointed. He just can not get no. 1 by running. If he stays with his current game and will play so patient stubborn punching game, he gets injured soon, it is the same case as Nadal. I am pretty sure that he will not able to play in another game mode. Yes, he is mentally stronger but more stubborn on his game pattern. That is the same case as Lendl was. He struggled with his net game as well. So, it seems that the pupil will follow his teacher

This is what the man himself thinks on the topic:

" I want to try win as much as possible and try and get to
number one if possible but it takes a lot of winning, a lot of hard
work, and you need to be mentally strong for the whole year."
"I've been a bit inconsistent this year, outside the grand slam, so I need to improve on that."

And this is what I think on the topic:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Eo22DL_CWGM/T5XDjnx5g-I/AAAAAAAABTI/IWsXs_xRFrc/s1600/scream-16_6155.jpg

noleisthebest wrote:And this is what I think on the topic:
[url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Eo22DL_CWGM/T5XDjnx5g-I/AAAAAAAABTI/IWsXs_xRFrc/s1600/scream-16_6155.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Eo22DL_CWGM/T5XDjnx5g-I/AAAAAAAABTI/IWsXs_xRFrc/s1600/scream-16_6155.jpg[/quote[/url]]

This picture is hanging above Andy´s bed next to Old Shatterhand picture

I am beginning to understand how Federer fans felt when Nadal overtook him (OK, I know the other bit as well.....)

noleisthebest wrote:I am beginning to understand how Federer fans felt when Nadal overtook him (OK, I know the other bit as well.....)

But Federer got stuck with Nadal as his the biggest friend, so Fed was happy in the end. Not sure about his fans though

The worst bit is that Nole and Andy are "friends" too

noleisthebest wrote:The worst bit is that Nole and Andy are "friends" too

I know that. Fortunately Andy is not such a disaster as that second one, but it is a kind ridiculous. I do not think that Nole will struggle with Andy in similar way though

paulcz wrote:
I know that. Fortunately Andy is not such a disaster as that second one, but it is a kind ridiculous. I do not think that Nole will struggle with Andy in similar way though

To become no1 its seems you have to win 2 majors in a season...or try to do what Roger did since last seasons U.S Open
Andy did well to win his maiden major but its unlikely that the draw will continue to open up for him at every major
If he does manage to become no1 I doubt he will be able to keep the ranking for an entire season,look how hard Nadal and Djokovic found it to keep the ranking,I cant see how Andy will manage it when they couldnt.There is no way Andy will dominate the field

Veejay wrote:To become no1 its seems you have to win 2 majors in a season...or try to do what Roger did since last seasons U.S Open
Andy did well to win his maiden major but its unlikely that the draw will continue to open up for him at every major
If he does manage to become no1 I doubt he will be able to keep the ranking for an entire season,look how hard Nadal and Djokovic found it to keep the ranking,I cant see how Andy will manage it when they couldnt.There is no way Andy will dominate the field

Interesting thing is that Delpo alsovoiced the same ambitions after he won his USO....must be stg in the water

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:To become no1 its seems you have to win 2 majors in a season...or try to do what Roger did since last seasons U.S Open
Andy did well to win his maiden major but its unlikely that the draw will continue to open up for him at every major
If he does manage to become no1 I doubt he will be able to keep the ranking for an entire season,look how hard Nadal and Djokovic found it to keep the ranking,I cant see how Andy will manage it when they couldnt.There is no way Andy will dominate the field

Interesting thing is that Delpo alsovoiced the same ambitions after he won his USO....must be stg in the water

Of course they all have their eyes on the no1 ranking,Murray is a little cockier about it,I remember back in 09 when he become no2 cause Nadal was out,in a press conference his response was.."only a few more weeks then Im no1" when he didnt even have a major under his belt! Turns out he didnt hang onto the no2 ranking for longer then 2 weeks
I actually think Del Potro could have become no1 if he wasnt side lined with his wrist injury for an entire season
The no1 ranking is a good goal but Murray doesnt have a firm grip on any part of the season,he isnt the outright player to beat on the hard court season,not the clay,grass or indoors
The only way I see him becoming no1 is if Federer really slows down and Djokovic or Nadal is out on injury while one of them has a shock loss like Nadal did at Wimbledon

Well if he makes it, good luck to him, but I don't look forward to THAT era

noleisthebest wrote:Well if he makes it, good luck to him, but I don't look forward to THAT era

LOL,its hardly going to be an era if it happens,whats the chances of him defending the U.S open let alone dominating the tour?

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Well if he makes it, good luck to him, but I don't look forward to THAT era

LOL,its hardly going to be an era if it happens,whats the chances of him defending the U.S open let alone dominating the tour?

It WAS meant to be a rhetorical, thought-provoking question/statement

Yeah,I know,its a pretty horrid nightmare sort of thought,but one I dont think we really need to worry about or question

No honestly, I do not see Murray winning more than 2 , 3 slams at teh very most...whichis not bad actually. But frankly....one is already a lot for him.

Hahaha, for you even one was not possible. If Djoker can win 5 with boring attritional physical play then so can Andy.

No never said that...look everywhere!

In fact I always said he will probably win one when the conds will favour it. And it's exactly what happened.

wow3 wrote:Hahaha, for you even one was not possible. If Djoker can win 5 with boring attritional physical play then so can Andy.

Even one was certainly not possible if Murray had been the old Murray. The old opinion was for the old Murray. OG win helped him a lot mentally and gave him confidence. The 5th set Murray played like I've never seen him in a big match. He played like it was now or never moment. This Murray deserved the win. Old Murray didn't.

Wow rotla!
You don't sound like the "old" rotla but a " new" one!

Got a new coach, perhaps

noleisthebest wrote:Wow rotla!
You don't sound like the "old" rotla but a " new" one!

Got a new coach, perhaps

No new coach. But appreciating Murray effort to win his 1st GS. He this was his great opportunity and he took it. Juts like Johansson did beating Safin.

Replying to the OP, I always said with a bit of thingsgoing his way, Murray can win a slam. But to dominate, he needs more than that. Circumstantial advantages will not last a long duration. To dominate, one needs to have a game for it. Does Murray have THE GAME?

Not yet.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: Juts like Johansson did beating Safin.

The old rotla is back!

Rotla, this conds clause by Tenez is but like the fine print on terms and conditions. What conds suit Djoker? Can Djoker only play on slower courts without any external factor? If yes, then he is more one dimensional than Murray because Murray beat Fed at Wimby, adapted well to wind, played well in Dubai, didn't chickened out on blue clay.

Everyone needs conds to win. Nadal does, so does Fed and Djoker. Fed lost the first set when roof was not closed but as it became indoor then Fed was winning.
So if Murray wins 5 slams then it will be because of conds. Great logic.

Also during Ao sf when conds were neutral Djoker did not win by much margin.

wow3 wrote:Rotla, this conds clause by Tenez is but like the fine print on terms and conditions. What conds suit Djoker? Can Djoker only play on slower courts without any external factor? If yes, then he is more one dimensional than Murray because Murray beat Fed at Wimby, adapted well to wind, played well in Dubai, didn't chickened out on blue clay.

Murray never even bothered turning up in Madrid. I remember how proud he was of other players congratulating him on his "cleverness" .

At least he was not issuing threats

wow3 wrote:Everyone needs conds to win. Nadal does, so does Fed and Djoker. Fed lost the first set when roof was not closed but as it became indoor then Fed was winning.
So if Murray wins 5 slams then it will be because of conds. Great logic.

Also during Ao sf when conds were neutral Djoker did not win by much margin.

Wow has a point here. Although Fed won the second set in open air, the indoor part was completely different for both men.

Tenez, although I can't find where you said Andy won't win any but Djoker was your clear Fav. Similarly you never picked Fed to win Wimby but I did.

I am very confident that Andy will win at least 5 now as monkey is off the back. The inconsistency at Masters was part of the plan to conserve energy for slams but next year Andy will be number one.

Djoko is going to have disastrous end season, you wait and watch. I still like Djoko but I don't agree with your unfair criticism of Murray.

wow3 wrote:Tenez, although I can't find where you said Andy won't win any but Djoker was your clear Fav. Similarly you never picked Fed to win Wimby but I did.

I am very confident that Andy will win at least 5 now as monkey is off the back. The inconsistency at Masters was part of the plan to conserve energy for slams but next year Andy will be number one.

Djoko is going to have disastrous end season, you wait and watch. I still like Djoko but I don't agree with your unfair criticism of Murray.

With that genius, you must be a betting mongul wow. I don't know what you are doing here, hop on that yacht moored in your back garden and sail away somewhere warm...and don't forge to send us a postcard!

Well to me Murray was really impressive v Rao. He played as if he had no alternative but to be aggressive and hold his ground (baseline). There I really thought he coudl win the USO.

Unfortunately, I did not see that in the final. He shoudl have never lost those 2 sets against a tired Djoko. It doesn't bode well for his future slams.

wow3 wrote:Tenez, although I can't find where you said Andy won't win any but Djoker was your clear Fav. Similarly you never picked Fed to win Wimby but I did.

You make the same mistakes as the Nadal fans. You think I support a player down to my simple liking not liking feelingss. I am only favouring a type of tennis played and also the behaviour going with it. So it's the more gutsy (not much more but yet more) play of Djoko which will make me support him. It's not because I like Djoko. I don't particularly like him, his parents are as off-putting as Murray's mum so between Murray and Djoko, it;s down to their style. No different than you supporting Djoko v Nadal. I can articualte why tennis wise I woudl support Djoko over Murray and I will keep it down to tennis.

I am very confident that Andy will win at least 5 now

That I am really prepared to bet he never will. If anything it shows why you were upsets about this site. Cause you have turned into a huge fan and a bit less of a tennis critic.

wow3 wrote:
I am very confident that Andy will win at least 5 now as monkey is off the back.

You know wow3, you make it sound like that there was a real monkey perching on Murray's back all this time. Or was it?

wow3 wrote:
The inconsistency at Masters was part of the plan to conserve energy for slams..

Why not!! In fact I think losing all these times in any tournament to even players ranked over 100 etc etc. that was all the part of the plan for Murray to win US open 2012. I believe he and Judy had it planed even before Murray turned pro.

Honestly I believe that Murray will probably win between 3-5 slams this year.

I know I said 6 on v2, but I do that on articles sometimes to create debate/difference of opinion.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

wow3 wrote:
The inconsistency at Masters was part of the plan to conserve energy for slams..

Why not!! In fact I think losing all these times in any tournament to even players ranked over 100 etc etc. that was all the part of the plan for Murray to win US open 2012. I believe he and Judy had it planed even before Murray turned pro.

I'm with Raiders on this one. I don't think Murray 'planned' to lose in Masters at all.

However I think in his mind Murray was very focused on slams, so has higher intensity when he plays slams.

In BO3 it is also slightly easier to cause an upset, so you have a higher chance of losing early.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

wow3 wrote:Hahaha, for you even one was not possible. If Djoker can win 5 with boring attritional physical play then so can Andy.

Even one was certainly not possible if Murray had been the old Murray. The old opinion was for the old Murray. OG win helped him a lot mentally and gave him confidence. The 5th set Murray played like I've never seen him in a big match. He played like it was now or never moment. This Murray deserved the win. Old Murray didn't.

ROTLA, could to see you congratulate Murray and give him credit where its due, good on you

Tenez, how many slams do you think Murray wil win in his career?

Amritia3ee wrote:Honestly I believe that Murray will probably win between 3-5 slams this year.

. How many slams are left for this year Amritia?

I know I know. Typographical mistake. Or is it?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Honestly I believe that Murray will probably win between 3-5 slams this year.

. How many slams are left for this year Amritia?

Oops, I meant for the rest of his career

I don't think Murray will win any more slams this year to be honest

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I know I know. Typographical mistake. Or is it?

Either that, or I accidentally thought ATP had changed the slams per year to 9

Amritia3ee wrote: ROTLA, could to see you congratulate Murray and give him credit where its due, good on you

I got your point, and your sentiment. Thanks for saying that. But I normally don't think any players owe any credit to any viewers/fans that viewers/fans will have to give if the said player wins. Its up to them to decide whether to appreciate it or not.

Amritia3ee wrote:Tenez, how many slams do you think Murray wil win in his career?

I think Murray isn't the best player in the world yet so his chance of winning slams are not down to him as much as it was for Federer, Djoko and Nadal.

I woudl be surprised if he repeated that feat and very very surprised he were to win 3.

This new generation is going to change things quickly. And if they want to speed up time between point, that also is going to change a few things.

I agree with most of what Tenez and ROTLA feel here but we might be proven wrong. Murray does not seem to be able to dominate for a stretch but we never know, he might continue improving every tournament... For now, he seem to be able to occasionally play his best tennis for a whole tournament, hopefully even more slams, so he can add a few to his sole one (for now). My guess would be he could win a couple next year at best and maybe one the next, so I'd put him around 3-4 all in all as I see the newer generation and even DelPo, Tsonga and Berdych in the mix. The thing is HC are still Murray and Djokovic's best surfaces. Murray isn't a natural mover for clay and as long as Nadal plays on clay, Murray won't win there, but even if Nadal isn't there Djoko and Fed and DelPo to only site a few have more chance of winning. For grass, who knows, my guess is it is still on Fed's racquet. So going back to HC it is two slams per year, so half of them, but as I said, Djoko is in the mix big time, but so is Fed and really anyone of the top 8, bar maybe Ferrer, plus maybe the newer generation coming already next year by the USO or worst case 2014. Which means for Murray to win more than one slam per year is a tough ask, but we'll wait and see, 2013 will tell us...

Amritia3ee wrote:Honestly I believe that Murray will probably win between 3-5 slams this year.

I know I said 6 on v2, but I do that on articles sometimes to create debate/difference of opinion.

How will he do that Amritia?

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Honestly I believe that Murray will probably win between 3-5 slams this year.

I know I said 6 on v2, but I do that on articles sometimes to create debate/difference of opinion.

How will he do that Amritia?

ROTLA already pointed it out...

We concluded that either it was an accidental error (and I meant to say career), or I accidentally thought/discovered an ATP plot to expand the slams this year to 9

Tenez wrote:Well to me Murray was really impressive v Rao. He played as if he had no alternative but to be aggressive and hold his ground (baseline). There I really thought he coudl win the USO.

Unfortunately, I did not see that in the final. He shoudl have never lost those 2 sets against a tired Djoko. It doesn't bode well for his future slams.

I was more impressed with Roanic to be honest,Murray could count on Roanic's inexperience to cost him the big points
The truth is Murray didnt actually "beat" his opponents to win the title,he just stayed with them and let them self destruct
Thats why he lost those 2 sets in the final,and then won the 5th

Amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Honestly I believe that Murray will probably win between 3-5 slams this year.

I know I said 6 on v2, but I do that on articles sometimes to create debate/difference of opinion.

How will he do that Amritia?

ROTLA already pointed it out...

We concluded that either it was an accidental error (and I meant to say career), or I accidentally thought/discovered an ATP plot to expand the slams this year to 9

So how is Murray going to win between 3-5 slams?
What made you lose confidence in the number 6?
You know 3 is half of 6,bit if a wish-wash prediction Amiritia,you think he may win at least double the amount of grand slams you least expect of him,or you think he will end up winning at least half the amount of majors you think he could possibly win

Forget about how many slams now. It's irrelevant.
The real question is: Can Murray be the GOAT?

He's beaten, OK - thrashed, Fed in the best of five at the Olympics, he's beaten Nadal in a slam, and now Djokovic. I'm sure he'd have no problem trouncing the aged Laver and Pete. He may let Agassi steal a set, just because he was his childhood hero.
I mean, why not?