Andy Murray's comeback.....

The papers today are full of gloomy articles about a set-back and Andy not being at Wimbledon &c &c.  Is there any substance to this stuff, is somebody somewhere in the know providing accurate information, or is it a press pile-on based on speculation which none of them want to miss out on?

Personally, and blissfully free of any specialist medical, sports-science, or other relevant knowledge, I have always been skeptical that he will be able to return to the form that won him slams and took him to #1.  To me it sounds like the sort of injury that you either try to manage as best you can by minor relatively risk-free surgery which may not do the trick; or if you are to address it you need really risky major surgery which is unlikely to pass a cost-benefit analysis for a player who is 30+ and has already amassed an 'all-time-great' career and stash of money.

From what I know, Murray has had at least two surgeries last winter, one on the leg the other hernia (hip?).
I'll ask my coach at the club if he knows anything more about this latest media claim you are mentioning.

Knowing how crucial movement was to his game and how much he used to run, he must be finding it difficult to reach those levels of fitness.

Trying to get that number one ranking from Djokovic, he burnt his candle at both ends.

We can see with the case of Djokovic now that he, who didn't have any issues with his legs is missing a step due to lack of match fitness, I imagine it would be twice as hard for Murray.

I am not following news about him, but did see a few pieces a few months ago  saying how he is practising etc.

I just read the BBC article about Murray's delayed return, it ain't all gloom and doom as you made it to be.

It makes sense he doesn't want to start on grass as that is the quickest and least forgiving surfaces, which is why I believe Nole chose to graft his form back on clay.

Murray probably wasn't ready for clay so now leaving it for post grass season which is ok.

I think he's done. I'm not saying he'll never be seen on a court again but I doubt he'll ever see the top 10 again let alone the highest levels.

It wasn't just the chase for #1 but his game generally is very wear & tear. Unlike Nadal, whose game is more about imposing attrition on the other guy, his game was about staying in and prolonging, spending his own energy just as much as the other guy. It has a limit.

bogbrush wrote:I think he's done. I'm not saying he'll never be seen on a court again but I doubt he'll ever see the top 10 again let alone the highest levels.

It wasn't just the chase for #1 but his game generally is very wear & tear. Unlike Nadal, whose game is more about imposing attrition on the other guy, his game was about staying in and prolonging, spending his own energy just as much as the other guy. It has a limit.

Agree....His downfall is that he was playing a la Ferrer being 3 inches taller and 15kg heavier.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I think he's done. I'm not saying he'll never be seen on a court again but I doubt he'll ever see the top 10 again let alone the highest levels.

It wasn't just the chase for #1 but his game generally is very wear & tear. Unlike Nadal, whose game is more about imposing attrition on the other guy, his game was about staying in and prolonging, spending his own energy just as much as the other guy. It has a limit.

Agree....His downfall is that he was playing a la Ferrer being 6* inches taller and 15kg heavier.

In fact Ferrer was much more aggressive!

6 inches taller actually!...not 3 as first written.

Yeah, Murray would play a passive shot from a short ball. It was ridiculous.

To be fair to Nadal he almost always has aggressive intent in his shot, even if that means putting up up 7 feet high to a SHBH.

I kind of expect Murray is for all practical purposes done.  Even if and when his health allows him to play, he will find it similarly difficult to motivate himself as Nole is finding it now.  Maybe he would handle it better than Nole, but it would not be easy.  He has had 10+ great years, won 3 slams, reached #1.  He will be 31+, it will be hard to meaningfully improve his resume, so where will the motivation come from?

Agree, don't see the logic of Andy coming back strongly, guess Djoko is playing just for sponsors, La Coste done a great fuck up with him, now he has to play.

I think he was always over-ambitious with his recovery time. I think the decision not to have surgery initially might be what has increased his time on the sidelines. The plus side for the Murray is that the competition is not plentiful in the sense that he is in total lockout from ever reaching the Top 10 again. 

I won't say it's the end just yet. Looking at Wawrinka and Djokovic has shown that it's going to take time not just find fitness, but shake off any rust. Djokovic is having a good week and Stan it's just time I think. There's a lot for him to shake off such as rust and even lack of confidence in the knee. He'll find his form again.

I think the real problem is regaining confidence in the injured 'part'; to perform at your best it can't even be in the corner of your mind that something might let you down.  I'd guess that given the working over these guys give to their bodies, it must take ages for confidence of that sort, once lost, to be regained.  It's not just on Court either, I'd imagine a big part of it is not training to the max on the affected area for a while.

Absolutely. When you have surgery it is already in your mind that it is severe enough that the body itself can't heal that area. Slips, falls, twinges. All create an element of self doubt. For some they never mentally recover and never regain the confidence despite the body area being healed. 

Murray must be looking at both his game and hip and wondering what he'll have to do to prevent putting too much strain on it and prolonging any longevity.

Not been watching the FO sadly. Just doesn't seem to be any interest. Very much a formality really.

Been following this story as this week getting ever closer to grass season, Andy is due to release a statement in the next 24 hours as to whether he will be playing in Netherlands and maybe even Wimbledon. He has stated he "hopes to be fit" but hope doesn't float as a favourite film of mine stated. 

My belief his season will rest on whether he is fit enough to play the Grass. Otherwise it's the Hardcourts and bruising Asian/Europe swing and then the close season. 

If only he'd skipped the US Open earlier last year and had the op shortly afterwards. Would be on course right about now.

It’s getting hard to see how this turns around tbh.

We are in the middle of a GS (some would say the greatest of the slams) and lk only shows up to talk about a semi-retired Scottish professional tennis player.

That does not feel right.

Ah, hey, it’s big news when a recent #1 is struggling to salvage his career, and surely it’s legitimate to discuss something other than the FO - it’s nearly Wimbledon after all, where the two-time champion is struggling to make an appearance.

I think that's SB's humour. Got burned before IIRC when he was being humorous.

It's not just Murray I might add. Nishikori is looking at a potential wrist operation. Raonic seems permanently injured. Djokovic was slightly blasé whether he would play Wimbledon.

Some of this generation will be seen off by injury alone it seems.

Interestingly BB, I look at Del Potro and see him as a beacon of hope as someone who has slowly but surely made it back. Though I take on board he wasn't in his 30's when it started.

Yeah, JMDP is the example to follow, though as you say age is different. Plus it wasn't his movement (though you couldn't get much worse than a knackered wrist).

legendkillar wrote:I think that's SB's humour.

Attempted humor, yes.

Muster is one who did very well late after having had his young career shorten due an accident.

But here it is slightly different (except maybe for Delpo)..those guys are just worn out, at least Murray is.

Yeah, Musters was because he got run over rather than wore his body out.

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, Musters was because he got run over rather than wore his body out.

If I remember he was in a taxi on his way to play v Noah when the taxi crashed into another car.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, Musters was because he got run over rather than wore his body out.

If I remember he was in a taxi on his way to play v Noah when the taxi crashed into another car.

Yeah but run over sounds so much better!

Bottom line, it wasn't the wear and tear of a decade of chasing everything down.

Muster’s best year was also when he was 28, so he’s not a good comparison in any event. 

I can’t think of any player who has had nearly a year off due to surgery post 30 who has then come back to anywhere near the top level. Fed’s recovery in 2017 is probably the closest but he’d more been resting/recuperating. If Andy can nudge himself up to 50 overall titles - even with mainly Mickey Mouse ones - that would be great. Any further success at the very highest level would be very unexpected in the circumstances.

Slippy wrote:Muster’s best year was also when he was 28, so he’s not a good comparison in any event. 

I can’t think of any player who has had nearly a year off due to surgery post 30 who has then come back to anywhere near the top level. Fed’s recovery in 2017 is probably the closest but he’d more been resting/recuperating. If Andy can nudge himself up to 50 overall titles - even with mainly Mickey Mouse ones - that would be great. Any further success at the very highest level would be very unexpected in the circumstances.

I'm afraid that this is mostly right.

I also think it is mostly right.

But I just checked bookie odds for the USO and I see that top four favorites are - you guessed it - Federer/Djokovic/Nadal/Murray.

Unreal, considering that Federer will be 37, Murray has not played in about a year, and Djokovic has not played any good in about a year.

There is money to be made backing against Murray there. Those odds are simply insane.

barrystar wrote:

Slippy wrote:Muster’s best year was also when he was 28, so he’s not a good comparison in any event. 

I can’t think of any player who has had nearly a year off due to surgery post 30 who has then come back to anywhere near the top level. Fed’s recovery in 2017 is probably the closest but he’d more been resting/recuperating. If Andy can nudge himself up to 50 overall titles - even with mainly Mickey Mouse ones - that would be great. Any further success at the very highest level would be very unexpected in the circumstances.

I'm afraid that this is mostly right.

I do think we are embarking on new territory. Seeing How Federer and Nadal are faring. Granted Djokovic and Wawrinka are having struggles, but given the wide disparity between them and the field quality makes me believe they might not be totally done just yet. Classic case of watch this space.

Problem with Murray’s comeback is his style of play. He needs to be back to 100% physically and then get himself match fit...and both are very big asks.

Main problem is he is weaponless and passive.

He would still be a very difficult opponent if he could get back to his 2016 form though...but that is a very big question mark.

His game does not depend that much on confidence, so you never know...

noleisthebest wrote:Problem with Murray’s comeback is his style of play. He needs to be back to 100% physically and then get himself match fit...and both are very big asks.

Main problem is he is weaponless and passive.

He would still be a very difficult opponent if he could get back to his 2016 form though...but that is a very big question mark.

His game does not depend that much on confidence, so you never know...

I wouldn't say he was weaponless. I think he does have variation, sadly its negated by the risk adverse mindset and approach. More power in the groundies is a must.

I agree on the match fit comment. Needs to be ready for Wimbledon to give him enough momentum for 2019.

Murray certainly has variety but is passive.

What weapons does he have?

His BH. Down the line and cross court. First serve if he ever finds it! Believe it or not if he had the courage, he would have a pretty decent FH too.

It's the mindset that's prevented him achieving so much more.

Yes, but the BH is a secondary weapon in tennis...the FH needs to be the one!

Murray muscles his shots too much. His game which looked artificial won him a lot but it was never a happy healthy formula.

That is why he will be struggling to return. Same as Nole, probably even more as he is not as aggressive,

Depends how you view the shots. The BH has fast become the defining shot for many in this generation. 

I agree his game wasn't a happy healthy formula. 

Still I think one of the benefits is that the competition hasn't stolen a huge march. I'm sure Djokovic and Wawrinka will be back in the mix after more match fitness and confidence.

So it's official. Murray will play Queens and faces Kyrgios in the first round. Mightily tough first round!

legendkillar wrote:So it's official. Murray will play Queens and faces Kyrgios in the first round. Mightily tough first round!

ouch!

mind you, last time they played on grass in Wimbledon, Murray destroyed Kyrgios in straights!

Tough starter. At least he’s playing but nobody should be expecting miracles straight off.

Murray certainly set the bar low for his comeback and even stated winning is not the be and end all.

What was concerning is that he stated there is still some discomfort. Only Queens before a BO5 tournament in Wimbledon coming up. Not sure I am convinced that's the best way of easing back into it.

he is cooked. Forget about him! As hard as it might be for a fan!

If I were a fan, I 'd be over the moon for his achievement considering the awful defensive game he had! He has made the most of his limited talent thanks to huge dedication and hard work, including timing his number 1 spot with everybody else being injured!

Allez Kyrgios!

Nah. I like watching anyone that plays for the love of the game.

His awful game was driven by those that sat above him sadly. Had the tools to be much more than he was. True product of the environment. 

Still waiting for the next gen player to captivate me.

legendkillar wrote:

His awful game was driven by those that sat above him sadly. Had the tools to be much more than he was. True product of the environment. 

Yes and no. I agree he had some talent but like the top 2 other road runners chose not to rely on it. but the reason the 3 of them chose not to rely on talent is that they knew others were more talented and therefore chose the path which were going to bring them more results.

This is a fact all roadrunners fans would accept if they were honest!

To win like Stan or Federer you need a huge amount of talent and it doesn't even guarantee a 5th of the RRunners success.

Look at how Stan flared against those RRs in spite of being so much more talented.

legendkillar wrote:Nah. I like watching anyone that plays for the love of the game.

His awful game was driven by those that sat above him sadly. Had the tools to be much more than he was. True product of the environment. 

Still waiting for the next gen player to captivate me.

Why wasn’t he, then?

Everyone eventually does the best they can with what they have.

Murray was pusher from the very start. And very passive.

There is more to talent than a good bh slice....a good serve for example. Not to mention the FH.

If it was left down to his talent, Murray would have never won a slam.

Agree NITB. STan knew he had a chance winning something one day with his game. He kept improving his own game and it paid off even at the expense of winning less.

Above all, Murray did not want to lose, It did not matter to him much how his "not-losing" looked like. It was more important for him to be consistent...even if that meant becoming ridiculously fit and adopt a game which was so much against his own "built" and nature.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Nah. I like watching anyone that plays for the love of the game.

His awful game was driven by those that sat above him sadly. Had the tools to be much more than he was. True product of the environment. 

Still waiting for the next gen player to captivate me.

Why wasn’t he, then?

Everyone eventually does the best they can with what they have.

Murray was pusher from the very start. And very passive.

There is more to talent than a good bh slice....a good serve for example. Not to mention the FH.

If it was left down to his talent, Murray would have never won a slam.

Purely because of what I believe to be a inferior mindset. I've always called him out on it.

He chose the route that had the most success attached to it. Each defeat met with "must get fitter" so he opted for that approach. One could credit that with good thinking, because it led to success, however it's unknown what could've been achieved with more aggression and not the default mindset to think safety all the time. 

He had a good serve under Gilbert. Many forget that quite easily. It's not just a BH, his flat BH one of the best in the game. As we've debated a solid BH can outweigh a solid FH (on match ups)

As for Tenez's point with Stan. Stan won more when he became fitter and bulked up. A FH that lacked power then had power in droves. Goes to the point of what confidence can do for a shot not rarely used as a primary weapon.

legendkillar wrote:Purely because of what I believe to be a inferior mindset. I've always called him out on it.

He chose the route that had the most success attached to it. Each defeat met with "must get fitter" so he opted for that approach. One could credit that with good thinking, because it led to success, however it's unknown what could've been achieved with more aggression and not the default mindset to think safety all the time. 

Good you at least admit that he chose the fitness route. Now do you think if you coudl score easy points at will consistently enough to win matches that you would go to as much fitness as Murray, Nadal or Djoko? Of course not. Murray knew that he had no choice to go that route. Had he had Federer's talent, he woudl not have put it aside to concentrate essentially on the fitness playing a game not relying on that talent.

He had a good serve under Gilbert. Many forget that quite easily. It's not just a BH, his flat BH one of the best in the game. As we've debated a solid BH can outweigh a solid FH (on match ups)

I did not forget...cause I never knew! I am not sure Murray ever had a good serve. except towards the end of his career where he had indeed a decent first serve......but overall pretty poor for his size and power. Flat BH is quite easy frankly as DBH gives you a bigger sweet spot. After hitting many it can become steadier than the FH which is played with one hand with more choice, slesser sweet spot hence more risk. So not sure your points are valid there.

As for Tenez's point with Stan. Stan won more when he became fitter and bulked up. A FH that lacked power then had power in droves. Goes to the point of what confidence can do for a shot not rarely used as a primary weapon.

Of course becoming fitter will help greatly, not so much the power (cause in my view Stan always had it) but the fact he was able to sustain his higher level for longer. But his game was never about keeping the ball in and trying to extend rallies.

His way of winning was certainly to force the running....but faster running for shorter rallies. This is how he destroyed Nadal and Djoko.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Purely because of what I believe to be a inferior mindset. I've always called him out on it.

He chose the route that had the most success attached to it. Each defeat met with "must get fitter" so he opted for that approach. One could credit that with good thinking, because it led to success, however it's unknown what could've been achieved with more aggression and not the default mindset to think safety all the time. 

Good you at least admit that he chose the fitness route. Now do you think if you coudl score easy points at will consistently enough to win matches that you would go to as much fitness as Murray, Nadal or Djoko? Of course not. Murray knew that he had no choice to go that route. Had he had Federer's talent, he woudl not have put it aside to concentrate essentially on the fitness playing a game not relying on that talent.

He had a good serve under Gilbert. Many forget that quite easily. It's not just a BH, his flat BH one of the best in the game. As we've debated a solid BH can outweigh a solid FH (on match ups)

I did not forget...cause I never knew! I am not sure Murray ever had a good serve. except towards the end of his career where he had indeed a decent first serve......but overall pretty poor for his size and power. Flat BH is quite easy frankly as DBH gives you a bigger sweet spot. After hitting many it can become steadier than the FH which is played with one hand with more choice, slesser sweet spot hence more risk. So not sure your points are valid there.  

As for Tenez's point with Stan. Stan won more when he became fitter and bulked up. A FH that lacked power then had power in droves. Goes to the point of what confidence can do for a shot not rarely used as a primary weapon.

Of course becoming fitter will help greatly, not so much the power (cause in my view Stan always had it) but the fact he was able to sustain his higher level for longer. But his game was never about keeping the ball in and trying to extend rallies.

His way of winning was certainly to force the running....but faster running for shorter rallies. This is how he destroyed Nadal and Djoko.

1) I've always stated he chose fitness. Said that for years, so nothing new. He clearly based that approach on how well likes of Nadal and Djokovic performed and hence we got what we see now. Using Federer's talent as a metric is non and void on this point. If just had the confidence (or more brutally guts) he could've developed a bigger FH to the one he had. He didn't. 

2) He did have. He was clocking 135mph serves under Gilbert. Go educate oneself. The difference in speed from 2005 to 2006/7 is big. BH points are valid. You've bemoaned for years the success the DHBH has allowed less talented players. Regardless of shot or technique, the point is valid.

3) Stan could hang in rallies he couldn't previously. Large in part to 1) having a more potent FH (which is a mix of confidence and fitness) and not relying so much on the BH and 2) the increased fitness. I choose not to look the other way just because he is talented. I see what improved his game and make no exceptions for calling it. Look at Gasquet in 2015. Got fitter and had his best year in 10 years! Even talent benefits massively with increased professionalism

Murray is toast.

Daniel wrote:Murray is toast.

Sounds ominous in light of this prediction from exactly two years ago:

Daniel wrote:Nadal is toast.

But I hope you are right this time.

LOL, broken clock..

He looked pretty good for someone who's been out for a year. Or did Kyrgios take it easy on him?

Anyhow, for a guy with a dodgy hip he did an awful lot of pointless chasing of balls. On one point he ran after 2 or 3 balls from side to side playing lobs, knowing full well that he had zero chance of winning that point.

Why would anyone do that? Even Rafa has stopped doing that - he gives up on balls that he would have chased in the past. Murray, from yesterday's evidence, is still hell bent on running everything down. This kind of brainless automation pisses me off. Now more than ever he needs to shorten points and learn about economy of effort.