Andy´s future and his run for no. 1

Veejay wrote:

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

I'm not sure, it's all to play for. Anything is possible- and a lot will depend on his rivals? Will Federer continue playing for much longer? Will Nadal recover and come back to full fitness? Will Djokovic up his game from 2012?

I also did say that on v2 I said 6 to create debate, this was the whole quote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
I know I said 6 on v2, but I do that on articles sometimes to create debate/difference of opinion.

Will be interesting to see where Andy ends up. My guess would be somewhere between two and four, but I would not be shocked if he ended up with one only. I would be more surprised with five than with one.

His problem is that he is still the fourth best player in the world (rankings notwithstanding). Of course, if Fed really grinds down to a halt, Nadal never gets back to his former self, and Nole slides further instead of bouncing back, Andy would have an opening until the new guys break through. But even then, the opening would probably not last too long - maybe two years tops. One of these days, the young guys just have to start performing.

Will be interesting to watch.

I think Murray is in a very good position at the moment and it seems like perfect timing,Federer is on his way out,I think Nadals career is starting to wind down,the era is coming to an end,he has a much better chance of winning a major with them in the draw now in comparison to the 4 seasons since he made his first grand slam final when he didnt stand a chance.
It really boils down to his window of opportunity,Id say he has 3 seasons max before we start seeing the next generation really dominating tennis,its unlikely ( not impossible) that he will win multiple slams in a season,even Hewitt and Safin found it hard to dominate the in-between era.I dont think Murray will ever have a dominant year like Djokovic, Nadal or Federer,I cant see him making enough grand slam finals in a season to give himself a legitimate chance to achieve that,plus he isnt going to win every final he plays in either

noleisthebest wrote: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?

Yeah..hes got the monkey off his back

I heard an interview with Ivan Lendl about his coaching of Andy today. He said that the coaching is quite easy for Ivan and praise Andy for his great effort and hard work. He said my coaching is not focused on technical side of strikes, but about a way how can be used as much efficient as possible by Andy. Ivan mentioned 10 years period, when he was coached by Tony Roche. He tries to apply the best from his experiences. One day we talk about tennis 2 hours and sometimes 16 hours per day To talk 16 hours about tennis, hmm, that is something

paulcz wrote: ...and sometimes 16 hours per day To talk 16 hours about tennis, hmm, that is something

Isn't it what we do everyday?

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote: ...and sometimes 16 hours per day To talk 16 hours about tennis, hmm, that is something

Isn't it what we do everyday?

Now, I am thinking, isn´t somebody from them as a poster here on your forum and catch some clever ideas from us, Ten ?

I would not be surprised!

Tenez wrote:I would not be surprised!

We are having people from all over the world reading this forum. So far: Japan, China, India, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Spain, SWITZERLAND ( ) USA (east and west coast), Netherlands, and loads from all over UK. I'm sure I saw other locations, but they were out of this world, so could not quite locate the exact spots

There are certainly lots of things we are not aware about the pro tour....But I am sure there are things we notice and they don't.

I wonder for instance if they know that Nadal was playing fast between points up to Miami 05? Do they know whether draws can be rigged? Have they noticed that some players are more cyclical than others? Or are they too much focused into their own business that they don;t even questions thing? Did they notice that Fed had a bad back most of his clay campaign and up to the second wek of WImby? I remember that Berdych coudl not even see that Federer could not move much in that Wimby 10!

Many questions, we will never know.

I reckon they know quite a lot, but just can't say it, obviously.
I mean, I''ll never buy and read Nadal's book, but hey, if Tony gets one out, I'll beat Wooffie to it

noleisthebest wrote:I reckon they know quite a lot, but just can't say it, obviously.
I mean, I''ll never buy and read Nadal's book, but hey, if Tony gets one out, I'll beat Wooffie to it

They know quite a lot but my impression is that some important details could escape them.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I reckon they know quite a lot, but just can't say it, obviously.
I mean, I''ll never buy and read Nadal's book, but hey, if Tony gets one out, I'll beat Wooffie to it

They know quite a lot but my impression is that some important details could escape them.

Aaaaah, now I know what our role was in Wimbledon during that Gasquet's match....

sphairistike wrote: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).

Yes, I mean no one knows the future for certain. But we can see what is the likelihood of an event. But there would be surprises.

Has Murray improved? A bit on the forehand definitely, its looked less shaky now and hits harder but he still relies on his slices and legs to win him important points. Was it his improvement that won him the slam? I won't say that. He was determined to make use of the opportunity and even risk and for me that was the reason he was able to win his GS.

Occasionally play his best? Do you want to say Murray played his best tennis to win US open? If this is Murray best then I'm more certain of him not winning 3-5 slams. Come on, final match had great drama, but quality was poor. Great occasion, great success, but poor tennis.

Did Murray play his best against Berdych? In my opinion it just didn't remain a tennis match, Berdy was rendered totally ineffective by the strong winds [ his first serves were about 70 odd mph on many occasions]. Was that great tennis? NO.

So Murray has won a slam, but he still doesn't have a great tennis. I always reckoned he might win a slam, lots of players had their opportunities and they took it. He had it in AO 2011, but failed. Murray sure was bound to get few more. At least he was more consistently better Johansson. So why not

[/quote]

The chance Murray has is that he developped this super fitness which like Nadal and Djoko will give him more opportunity to reach far in slams consistently.

Tenez wrote:The chance Murray has is that he developped this super fitness which like Nadal and Djoko will give him more opportunity to reach far in slams consistently.

Is it not the case already?

Tenez wrote:The chance Murray has is that he developped this super fitness which like Nadal and Djoko will give him more opportunity to reach far in slams consistently.

I think that Novak"s fitness is below Nadal"s, Murray's and Ferrer's.

How would you compare Novaks's fitness to Federer's?

Novak's natural and outstanding athleticism is often being confused with his fitness.
If you were to put top 10 on a running track, I'm not sure he'd even scrape in top 5.
He's got it all in his legs but his torso is about 30% behind unlike the other 3 I mentioned.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:The chance Murray has is that he developped this super fitness which like Nadal and Djoko will give him more opportunity to reach far in slams consistently.

I think that Novak"s fitness is below Nadal"s, Murray's and Ferrer's.

Is it?
Against Nadal, most of those 7 match winning streak were simply outlasting tennis? Pure stamina, legs and lungs.

1. Miami: Nadal was left absolutely breathless by the end of the match.
2. Wimbledon. I don't have the stats atm but from memory I can say a very large part of the longer points were won by Djokovic.
3. So was the case in US open
4. It was such an effective play for Djo, he was absolutely 100% convinced on continuing that strategy in AO 2012 final. He tried to keep points as long as possible and force an error. He didn't try to finish points early even when they were so easily presented. Trying that would have been risking a pass. He didn't take it, because he was certain he could outlast him and Nadal will give will an error?

Now if he is not as at least as fit as Nadal, how could he keep it going?

Nadal's success has convinced lot of player than supreme fitness is a great advantage to have and can very well be employed to win.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:The chance Murray has is that he developped this super fitness which like Nadal and Djoko will give him more opportunity to reach far in slams consistently.

Is it not the case already?

It is.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Is it?
Against Nadal, most of those 7 match winning streak were simply outlasting tennis? Pure stamina, legs and lungs.

1. Miami: Nadal was left absolutely breathless by the end of the match.
2. Wimbledon. I don't have the stats atm but from memory I can say a very large part of the longer points were won by Djokovic.
3. So was the case in US open
4. It was such an effective play for Djo, he was absolutely 100% convinced on continuing that strategy in AO 2012 final. He tried to keep points as long as possible and force an error. He didn't try to finish points early even when they were so easily presented. Trying that would have been risking a pass. He didn't take it, because he was certain he could outlast him and Nadal will give will an error?

Now if he is not as at least as fit as Nadal, how could he keep it going?

Nadal's success has convinced lot of player than supreme fitness is a great advantage to have and can very well be employed to win.

I don't think Djoko is half as fit as Nadal but his game is more energy friendly so he can outlast Nadal. I would say same applies v Murray.

And I think his form (stamina) has fluctuated a lot. Rather poor prior 2010 and certainly not as good since 2011.

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Is it?
Against Nadal, most of those 7 match winning streak were simply outlasting tennis? Pure stamina, legs and lungs.

1. Miami: Nadal was left absolutely breathless by the end of the match.
2. Wimbledon. I don't have the stats atm but from memory I can say a very large part of the longer points were won by Djokovic.
3. So was the case in US open
4. It was such an effective play for Djo, he was absolutely 100% convinced on continuing that strategy in AO 2012 final. He tried to keep points as long as possible and force an error. He didn't try to finish points early even when they were so easily presented. Trying that would have been risking a pass. He didn't take it, because he was certain he could outlast him and Nadal will give will an error?

Now if he is not as at least as fit as Nadal, how could he keep it going?

Nadal's success has convinced lot of player than supreme fitness is a great advantage to have and can very well be employed to win.

I don;t Djoko is half as fit as Nadal but his game is more energy friendly so he can outlast Nadal. I would say same applies v Murray.

Can you help me understand how. Is it got to do with the amount of topspin Nadal generates, because that must require massive amount of energy.

Well exactly. To generate so much topspin and to do it from far back 4m behind the BL, often stretched in crazy position requires energy and 02. When standing far back, the pace of the ball drops very fast and therefore pace has to be generated almost from scratch, it's like having to serve on every point. Standing just after the bounce and blocking the shots a la Davydenko requires very little energy. This is why Nadal himself says that Djoko's strength is taking the ball early. It allows him to dictate and spends less energy.

Posters don't realise that a player gets tired within a given rally. Nadal knows that as the rally goes on, his chances of producing powerful and precise shots goes down. Nadal is often forced to pull for winner v Djoko and MUrray after 10 shots....especially as he usually covers more ground too.

Actually, Nole is the one who hits flattest amongst the top 4 and his racquet "settings" can be used to justify why...

I don;t think Djoko hits flatest. His grip really would prevent that. If you notice there is a lot of wrist action in Djokovic's shots and that allows him to find great angles with his FH. I know that Federer also uses lots of spin his FH are generally lower, deeper and pacier than Djoko.

Murray jhas probably the flatest BH but he doesn;t take it as early as Djoko and even less early as Federer.

Tenez, I could recall an article a while back - that I cannot find anymore unfortunately - that was backing my claim, but maybe Murray was not considered in the comp, so let's just say he hits flatter than Nadal and Fed, even though I'm sure Fed would hit flatter on grass for instance, but most of the time, Nole is hitting flattest...

It's difficult to hit spinnier with 90in racquet (Fed's) than it woudl be with a 100in racquet used by Djoko. Djoko's racquet is also lighter favouring spin.

Here I think it;s pretty clear Fed's FHs are flatter, heavier, certainly on HC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y84dUk4VEzI

It's difficult to hit anything with Fed's racquet as it is the most difficult racquet to play with on tour, and not just because of the smaller frame...

Also here you are taking the example of one of the best aggressive matches that Fed has played, so obviously he'd be hitting flatter than usual...