How Good Is Andy Murray Really?

"Born a week apart..."

We have heard this line referring to Murray and Djokovic many times.
The two have been compared and I always felt Murray was overhyped.

According to many he had the talent: great hands, volleying, clever mind....

Yes, when he broke through in 2008, he was beating Federer regularly, and after a 0:6 H2H start against Nole, managed to catch up and deny him in two slam finals as well as Cinci Masters 1000.

With Nadal, who can forget that 2009 SF match? Murray came to him close many times.

He was better than those below him which gave him membership to the "Big Four", but he never quite established as the equal with the "Big Three".

Why was that?

He changed coaches, won 2 slams...has he under or over achieved?
Or...are two slams The Goldilock scenario - just right!

For me, he is an acquired taste (and I don't believe in such a thing!)

What do you think?

What 2009 sf match? Do you mean when he beat Rafa at the US in 08?
That was a match where I actually cheered for Murray and enjoyed his attacking! Like his 07 match at the aus open vs Rafa.

Sorry, I meant the 2010 AO QF.

That was the first time I was impressed by him.

But he rarely repeated that performance, he was also good against Kholi in RG last year, I think.

The answer is: overrated.  And I say that because of his tantrums on court and weak mentality in big moments.  If he had the personality and mental fortitude, he'd have won more.  2 Slams is flattering him really, given his atrocious attitude.

He is a very good defensive player who is able to adapt and work out problems better than most.  He has good movement and a good 1st serve.  His issues are all in his head and his weak second serve. 

The two slams and the Olympics that he won required stars aligning.  At the US Open, the conditions were awful and Djokovic could not get going.  You can say that Murray is a much better player in adverse conditions, but that changes nothing.  At the olympics, he played a Federer who was knackered, having just finished the longest 3 set match in the history of tennis.  At Wimbledon, it was Djokovic who had just come through a marathon match.

At the end of the day, Murray won all 3, but he didn't do it convincingly; rather, because of how things panned out.


Also, "Big 4" makes me cringe.  There is NO BIG 4.  There was a Big 3 (now just a Big 1), but never a big 4.  Murray is not in the same league as Fed, Nad, and Djok.

I think similar as you, but my reason for being suspicious of all that talked about talent is his FH.

Lendl helped him a lot there, and then left on a high.

Murray's FH has always been a laboured shot and you can't say someone is talented with a worked, artificial FH like that.

That's why I think he gets frustrated. He has to work hard to win a point.

It's easy to look aggressive and attacking when playing Nadal. Simply because one has no choice of attacking while playing Nadal or you end up doing the running.

Murray's best performance was USO 14 1/4F v Djoko. Very impressive then.

Problem I have with Murray is that he is simply too fit. It's unhealthy and bringing tennis to territories I don't want.

If a 17yo with spaguetti arms is able to pull winners on the tour why does someone need to have arms and legs like Murray?

To retrieve balls safely from all corners? Would not mind if was based on purely athletic skills...though I don't believe in those in 2015!

FedererKing wrote:The answer is: overrated.  And I say that because of his tantrums on court and weak mentality in big moments.  If he had the personality and mental fortitude, he'd have won more.  2 Slams is flattering him really, given his atrocious attitude.

I have to completely disagree actually. His hard working ethics, "professionalism", tenacity, maturity and fitness is what really gave him 2 slams. His talent alone would never have given him 2 slams. There are too many more talented people out there. Murray was right to choose the hard working, professional route cause it is not his drop shotting and volleying without a serve which could have granted him 2 slams.

Shouting and screaming after every point is the surest sign you are mentally fragile and it sends a message to your opponent that can only help them.

FedererKing wrote:Shouting and screaming after every point is the surest sign you are mentally fragile and it sends a message to your opponent that can only help them.

If you play with thin margins yes, but Murray muscles (spin) the ball a lot. As you say he is constantly shouting and screaming yet he wins 90% of his matches.

At the end he is essentially only beaten by better players....and even beats many I consider better.

Tenez wrote:It's easy to look aggressive and attacking when playing Nadal. Simply because one has no choice of attacking while playing Nadal or you end up doing the running.

Yes, that's a very good point you've been mentioning for years about Nadal making other players look good.
The proof is that those who beat him usually lose in the next round, esp in Wimbledon.

Tenez wrote:Problem I have with Murray is that he is simply too fit. It's unhealthy and bringing tennis to territories I don't want.

Exactly.
Anderson played so well for so long last night and nearly lost.
I fear Nole is now in that category, too. He is still lean but has bulked up in shoulders quite a bit.
Even more dangerous than Murray in that respect simply as he has a better FH and serve.
Unfortunately, he uses it all to drain although he is quite capable of playing properly.

Tenez wrote:If a 17yo with spaguetti arms is able to pull winners on the tour why does someone need to have arms and legs like Murray?

Yes, Rubi!
We need to see more of him.
How long do you give him before he can catch up with stamina?
I hope 1-2 years.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's easy to look aggressive and attacking when playing Nadal. Simply because one has no choice of attacking while playing Nadal or you end up doing the running.

Yes, that's a very good point you've been making for years about Nadal making other players look good.
The proof is that those who beat him usually lose in the next round, esp in Wimbledon.

Tenez wrote:Problem I have with Murray is that he is simply too fit. It's unhealthy and bringing tennis to territories I don't want.

Exactly.
Anderson played so well for so long last night and nearly lost.

I fear Nole is now in that category, too. He is still lean but has bulked up in shoulders quite a bit.
Even more dangerous than Murray in that respect simply as he has a better FH and serve.
Unfortunately, he uses it all to drain although he is quite capable of playing properly.

Tenez wrote:If a 17yo with spaguetti arms is able to pull winners on the tour why does someone need to have arms and legs like Murray?

Yes, Rubi!
We need to see more of him.
How long do you give him before he can cope with stamina?

He must have played very well to get so close KA. I believe KA got almost more trouble with him than Murray. Same 4 setters with 3 close sets.

However I am a bit more sceptical about Rublev. He is too one dimensional for now. This can change but as it is.... Thiem really impressed me in his loss to KA (Another very close 3 setter).

Yes, but Thiem is 21.
But I know what you mean about Rubi and 1d.

He'll have no choice but to learn fast as he is hungry for winning, main thing is that he has talent.

He actually has the same aggressive streak as Thiem.

Thiem is physically like an adult compared to him, very similar to Stan.

Sure Thiem is pretty fit but his shots are really good.

I think Andy is good. The thing is when making the distinction between an aggressive player and percentage player, we need to be a bit more bespoke. For me a player routinely going for shots he is never going to make isn't an aggressive or not talented player, they are just a moron.

Andy plays within himself. His lack of confidence in his ability to pull high risk shots has really cost him more titles. The serve, the TB passiveness. It is limiting him so much and it's a shame his career will reflect that. 

I feel it's what could've been.

FedererKing wrote:Shouting and screaming after every point is the surest sign you are mentally fragile and it sends a message to your opponent that can only help them.

Can I ask does this apply to you?

I just say that because I have seen you on here ranting and swearing and insulting posters. Are you weak mentally?

legendkillar wrote:

FedererKing wrote:Shouting and screaming after every point is the surest sign you are mentally fragile and it sends a message to your opponent that can only help them.

Can I ask does this apply to you?

I just say that because I have seen you on here ranting and swearing and insulting posters. Are you weak mentally?

At tennis, yes I am. I suffer from the same issue as Murray when it comes to tennis- except I don't do it anywhere near as often and I clap shots and congratulate my opponent at the end of a good shot.  I also readily accept it is a weakness and work on remedying it (I am also not a professional, or I would have solved the problem.  Unlike Murray).  You should go troll someone more your intellect.

As for swearing and "ranting" - I don't do that here at all really. I do enjoy abusing fanboys and ignoramus posters, of which 606v2 is infested.  You are merely one of many there who are full of shit.  There's your swear word, but you get it when you deserve it.

Pretty simple, yup?

It's a bit rich you coming here lecturing me on forum etiquette when you are clearly insulting me (probably because I had the audacity to criticize Murray).

You did swear at posters in the past and then left. Good to have you back but ease off on ma maaaan, maaa maaaaaan, ma boi LK.

Firstly, he was trolling.  Secondly, when someone takes an argument to the person and completely skips the substance of a post - they need calling out on it.  Thirdly, anyone I "swear" at has likely deserved it - like he just did.

I make no apologies for that.  Either debate the post, LK or don't bother replying.

I actually really rate Andy Murray. 
I think the gap between him and Djokovic is very marginal, but tennis is a game of margins. Djokovic is just mentally stronger and seems to have more natural confidence in his game. 

Murray does have a good mentality in general though, in that he keeps determined and fighting. Sometimes that spills over in negative body language, which costs him a bit.

FedererKing wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

FedererKing wrote:Shouting and screaming after every point is the surest sign you are mentally fragile and it sends a message to your opponent that can only help them.

Can I ask does this apply to you?

I just say that because I have seen you on here ranting and swearing and insulting posters. Are you weak mentally?

At tennis, yes I am. I suffer from the same issue as Murray when it comes to tennis- except I don't do it anywhere near as often and I clap shots and congratulate my opponent at the end of a good shot.  I also readily accept it is a weakness and work on remedying it (I am also not a professional, or I would have solved the problem.  Unlike Murray).  You should go troll someone more your intellect.

As for swearing and "ranting" - I don't do that here at all really. I do enjoy abusing fanboys and ignoramus posters, of which 606v2 is infested.  You are merely one of many there who are full of shit.  There's your swear word, but you get it when you deserve it.

Pretty simple, yup?

It's a bit rich you coming here lecturing me on forum etiquette when you are clearly insulting me (probably because I had the audacity to criticize Murray).

I have to laugh really because you very much encapsulated the substance of your point quite brilliantly! Blue peter badge for you sir.

I'll be frank. I couldn't give a fuck who you criticise or anything. If I am honest your one of those Daily Fail pricks. 

If you actually read my post and did a bit of self reflection, you might have thought twice about the point I was getting at. You are making the assumption that people who swear or rant are simply weak and performance levels decline as a result. You symbolise this as being mentally weak. I beg to differ. Some actually feed off self-negative criticism of themselves or the situation. Some actually find better performance levels. 

See I actually agree that Murray is mentally weak at clutch moments, however I don't think that because he swears or rants. Look closer at this play and you'll see that it's his mindset that's the issue. Where most go on the attack to turn around a losing situation or enhance a winning position. Murray does neither.

I agreed it is a weakness.  That took the wind out of your sails and, unlike you, I am man enough to know and admit my errors.  I don't need to be given the holier-than-thou treatment by someone who is insulting me at the same time as complaining about insults.  Also, I suggest you get your spelling fine-tuned.  It's jarring.

If I am honest your one of those Daily Fail pricks.

"You're".

I suggest if you are going to attack someone's intelligence, you get one of your own first. Bringing in the Daily Mail / politics is absolutely desperate, but at least we all know why you had your little tantrum at me.

Edit.

Also, the serious frustration Murray has while playing can only be detrimental.  I speak from someone who plays tennis a lot and has the same underlining frustrations (although, as I have said, I am not in Murray's league in terms of his crap personality and frequency of outbursts).  There's no way you can spin that on-court behaviour as anything other than a negative.  It's absolutely a negative.  I play worse when I get frustrated to that level, and so does every human.

Boys, boys!

Calm down...this is only our lovely tennis we are trying to talk here.

Let's be civil and kind to each other, life is hard enough as it is...we are all in the same boat!

I'm not a man and don't have a need for aggression, so don't know what to say....punch a pillowcase, run around the block or stg!

Or buy a bunch of flowers like me and look at them as often as you can (now you are probably thinking I'm totally ga-ga...), you know what I mean...

Is there a handbags emoji?

This forum is normally relatively civil, with more passionate debates about the subject without any explicit language aimed at specific posters.

legendkillar wrote:I think Andy is good. The thing is when making the distinction between an aggressive player and percentage player, we need to be a bit more bespoke. For me a player routinely going for shots he is never going to make isn't an aggressive or not talented player, they are just a moron.

Andy plays within himself. His lack of confidence in his ability to pull high risk shots has really cost him more titles. The serve, the TB passiveness. It is limiting him so much and it's a shame his career will reflect that. 

I feel it's what could've been.

That's the key but not the same for all players.

If you have talent, say a great FH, you can easily be tempted to try your luck and go for the shot more than your talent/consistency allows you. Example: Verdasco.

Now if only he had the brains and discipline of those less talented players like Murray...

Or, imagine Nishi's ball-striking talent in a taller, more athletic body.

So, Murray is doing well by what he has been given.

But as Tenez said, the problem is superfitness that is killing our sport he is promoting with his tennis.

There is a great English player Dan Evans, lovely game, SBH, ok, a bit of a nutcase, but not a household name. He's dropped off the charts because he can't survive in current big muscles era...

And who are young juniors going to want to follow?

luvsports! wrote:Is there a handbags emoji?

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think Andy is good. The thing is when making the distinction between an aggressive player and percentage player, we need to be a bit more bespoke. For me a player routinely going for shots he is never going to make isn't an aggressive or not talented player, they are just a moron.

Andy plays within himself. His lack of confidence in his ability to pull high risk shots has really cost him more titles. The serve, the TB passiveness. It is limiting him so much and it's a shame his career will reflect that. 

I feel it's what could've been.

That's the key but nit the same for all players.

If you have talent, say a great FH, you can easily be tempted to try your luck and go for the shit more than your talent/consistency allows you. Example: Verdasco.

Now if only he had the brains and discipline if those less talented players like Murray.

Or, imagine Nishi's ball-striking talent in a taller, more athletic body.

So, Murray is doing well by what he has been given.

But as Tenez said, the problem is superfitness that is killing our sport.

There is a great English player Dan Evans, lovely game, SBH, ok, a bit of a nutcase, but not a household name. He's dropped off the charts because he can't survive in current big muscles era...

And who are young juniors going to want to follow?

I remember me and LS has a lively debate once on who was more talented out of Dan Evans and Andy Murray.

Yes I vaguely remember that phase, you did a few threads with who is more talented, remember there was one with Karlovic vs someone...they were quite interesting.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:I actually really rate Andy Murray. 
I think the gap between him and Djokovic is very marginal, but tennis is a game of margins. Djokovic is just mentally stronger and seems to have more natural confidence in his game. 

Murray does have a good mentality in general though, in that he keeps determined and fighting. Sometimes that spills over in negative body language, which costs him a bit.

Yes but "mentality" doesn't fall from the sky...

Nadal is a perfect example: from a mental fortress to this suddenly almost fearful player with depleted confidence.

Yes, Djokovic is tenacious and resilient as a character and that comes through in his game, but imagine if courts got really fast, he would drop in rankings and not be winning everything.

Murray...sorry but he is a spoilt brat. Imagine yourself being repeatedly vulgar in front of cameras to your mother, wife, coaches...it's bad.

So, being soft inside he gets frustrated when he is losing, that is all. Nothing mental. He just hates losing face and the way he deals with it is berate himself and when that is not enough, those around him.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think Andy is good. The thing is when making the distinction between an aggressive player and percentage player, we need to be a bit more bespoke. For me a player routinely going for shots he is never going to make isn't an aggressive or not talented player, they are just a moron.

Andy plays within himself. His lack of confidence in his ability to pull high risk shots has really cost him more titles. The serve, the TB passiveness. It is limiting him so much and it's a shame his career will reflect that. 

I feel it's what could've been.

That's the key but not the same for all players.

If you have talent, say a great FH, you can easily be tempted to try your luck and go for the shot more than your talent/consistency allows you. Example: Verdasco.

Now if only he had the brains and discipline of those less talented players like Murray...

Or, imagine Nishi's ball-striking talent in a taller, more athletic body.

So, Murray is doing well by what he has been given.

But as Tenez said, the problem is superfitness that is killing our sport he is promoting with his tennis.

There is a great English player Dan Evans, lovely game, SBH, ok, a bit of a nutcase, but not a household name. He's dropped off the charts because he can't survive in current big muscles era...

And who are young juniors going to want to follow?

But again one shot doesn't make a player insanely talented. This is the thing. You mention Verdasco. See I don't see him as a risk all player. This guy is renowned for letting a draft put him off. It then becomes a whole new debate are players deploying a more risky game because they feel or else will fail against players with higher levels of fitness.

What I see of Murray is that this guy played with an element of aggression in his early years. After each defeat to a Nadal or Djokovic it was "I need to get fitter" now do I blame Murray for that direction? I don't.

The current state of the game has caused players to go down that route sadly.

In terms of Murray's conduct, it doesn't bother me as such as being around people in the amateur sport scene for decades I have heard and seen worse. It's bad habits. Looks at Verdasco. I remember he was disgusting about an opponent. Why wasn't anything said? Because he said it in Spanish. So I do wonder what other players say in their native tongue because I would wager they are just as bad.

That's the point I am making. A professional should be above that. Federer was bad in his youth but look how far he's adapted and matured since being a teenager. Murray should have done the same.

Can you imagine a screeching, bawling Federer as a 17 Slam champ? Because I can't.

legendkillar wrote:
But again one shot doesn't make a player insanely talented. This is the thing. You mention Verdasco. See I don't see him as a risk all player. This guy is renowned for letting a draft put him off. It then becomes a whole new debate are players deploying a more risky game because they feel or else will fail against players with higher levels of fitness.

What I see of Murray is that this guy played with an element of aggression in his early years. After each defeat to a Nadal or Djokovic it was "I need to get fitter" now do I blame Murray for that direction? I don't.

The current state of the game has caused players to go down that route sadly.

In terms of Murray's conduct, it doesn't bother me as such as being around people in the amateur sport scene for decades I have heard and seen worse. It's bad habits. Looks at Verdasco. I remember he was disgusting about an opponent. Why wasn't anything said? Because he said it in Spanish. So I do wonder what other players say in their native tongue because I would wager they are just as bad.

I never said one shot makes a player insanely talented, but FH is usually a good indication of how talented a player is.

We had a really good debate here a few months ago about Ferrer's talent.

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t737-david-ferrer-what-a-talent?highlight=Ferrer

A player that naturally got mentioned was Dolgo.
LS and I were suggesting he was very talented, Tenez was pointing out that he was not consistent enough.

And he was right. Similar to Verdasco, Dolgo is not playing within himself.
OK, conditions are against him, but maybe even his own vanity.

So he and Verdasco, yes they are talented but not "insanely" talented as you mention.

It's good we have Federer because he has really set the bar so high it's easy to measure others off him.

No he can show off as much as he likes, pull shots he likes at will and play within himself...why because he IS insanely talented.

The rest are dealing with what they have.

Back to fitness route, yes I get the "I don't blame him" route.
Again, the problem is a few players are killing tennis and talent with that route.
That's why we all liked tennis to start with, to watch variety, flair, not these 4,5,6 hour dull marathons.

I don't care where they are from...

FedererKing wrote:That's the point I am making.  A professional should be above that.  Federer was bad in his youth but look how far he's adapted and matured since being a teenager.  Murray should have done the same.

Can you imagine a screeching, bawling Federer as a 17 Slam champ? Because I can't.

I agree.
But that's a big fly in his ointment, I really don't think it affect his game that much, just helps him deal with losing, bad shots..


As LK said, many do it, but unfortunately for Murray, the whole world can understand him...he needs to learn some obscure language...

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
But again one shot doesn't make a player insanely talented. This is the thing. You mention Verdasco. See I don't see him as a risk all player. This guy is renowned for letting a draft put him off. It then becomes a whole new debate are players deploying a more risky game because they feel or else will fail against players with higher levels of fitness.

What I see of Murray is that this guy played with an element of aggression in his early years. After each defeat to a Nadal or Djokovic it was "I need to get fitter" now do I blame Murray for that direction? I don't.

The current state of the game has caused players to go down that route sadly.

In terms of Murray's conduct, it doesn't bother me as such as being around people in the amateur sport scene for decades I have heard and seen worse. It's bad habits. Looks at Verdasco. I remember he was disgusting about an opponent. Why wasn't anything said? Because he said it in Spanish. So I do wonder what other players say in their native tongue because I would wager they are just as bad.

I never said one shot makes a player insanely talented, but FH is usually a good indication of how talented a player is.

We had a really good debate here a few months ago about Ferrer's talent.

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t737-david-ferrer-what-a-talent?highlight=Ferrer

A player that naturally got mentioned was Dolgo.
LS and I were suggesting he was very talented, Tenez was pointing out that he was not consistent enough.

And he was right. Similar to Verdasco, Dolgo is not playing within himself.
OK, conditions are against him, but maybe even his own vanity.

So he and Verdasco, yes they are talented but not "insanely" talented as you mention.

It's good we have Federer because he has really set the bar so high it's easy to measure others off him.

No he can show off as much as he likes, pull shots he likes at will and play within himself...why because he IS insanely talented.

The rest are dealing with what they have.

Back to fitness route, yes I get the "I don't blame him" route.
Again, the problem is a few players are killing tennis and talent with that route.
That's why we all liked tennis to start with, to watch variety, flair, not these 4,5,6 hour dull marathons.

I don't care where they are from...

In Dolgo, I think his un-orthodox style has quite a randomness with it in terms I don't know what shot he'll play and also it isn't the most refined style, but I like how it looks like something out of the backyard tennis style. 

Insanely talented was strong, but I don't gauge a FH to be the defining barometer when identifying a talented player. I think a player has to have an all round game. 

Look at Federer. He is that standard. Great FH and BH and great volleys and serving. When you have that total package, just wow. Some might have 2 or even 3of those attributes. They tend not to reach the level. Look at Wawrinka. For years it was the BH. Over time the FH got much better as did his serve and look at his results.

Tenez is right. Consistency is the key to unlocking talent. I think of the talented ones can't find 3-4 piercing shots in a rally, then I put that down to poor execution.

The game and the game makers have a duty to bring balance to the game and reward all styles.

I think his peak was when Lendl was with him. He played then how he should play. When he needed a back surgery i started to have doubts he would ever get back to that level. And he never did.
This year his game is crap, so Mauresmo is not the right coach for him. It's all grinding now, very dissapointing.
I don't see him as a favorite to win slams anymore so you could say he's overrated. But he's still an underachiever if you compare his 2 slams with Djoko's 9 (and counting) and Nadal's 14.

gallery play wrote:..... But he's still an underachiever if you compare his 2 slams with Djoko's 9 (and counting) and Nadal's 14.

I think Djoko is certainly achieving more with less. Murray without those muscle would struggle to stay in the top 15. Let's not forget that all his matches won against the talented players of the top 50 is essentially based on retrieving thanks to his superior fitness like against mannarino in the previous round.

I really cannot rate Murray for his skills and talent but certainly huge determination!

Djoko is very much the same but at least he doesn't need those 2 engines on his quads to move around.

Djokovic has much better timing on the ball than Murray there is no way Murray could return Federers serve with the same precision. Andy literally has no unique style of his own that's why when he plays a top 4 player he rarely has good winners stats, a bit better than Nadal but generally lower than Djokovic and way lower than Stan or Fed.

Murray and Hewitt are about the same in terms of talent level and strokes

AceofDeath wrote:Djokovic has much better timing on the ball than Murray there is no way Murray could return Federers serve with the same precision. Andy literally has no unique style of his own that's why when he plays a top 4 player he rarely has good winners stats, a bit better than Nadal but generally lower than Djokovic and way lower than Stan or Fed.

Murray and Hewitt are about the same in terms of talent level and strokes

The key when comparing Murray and Djoko is to compare mouvement. Timing a ball is easier when you arrive on the ball early. If you are rushed it's going to be harder to time it. That's in essence why Djoko looks good taking the ball early. When Murray is not rushed I think he can do more with the ball in general. His BH is really hit flatter and damages more. However I agree his FH has always been poor (even when Lendl was around).