Miami - Semi-final :- Murray v Djokovic

Sheddie · administrator

Miami - Semi-final :- Murray v Djokovic

murrays main man · Lower Club Player

Sheddie wrote:

but what about Roddick in San Jose semis 2007 ? Karlovic in the final ? (and he'd beaten Blake remember)

Haas in Indian Wells quarters ? Davydenko in Doha semis ? Hewitt in San Jose final 2006 ? Gonzalez in USO rd3 ? Roddick in Wimbledon rd3 ?

Those were all big matches and there were big performances from Muzza

the really big matches I was referring to are masters series semis or grand slams.

Salmon · Tennis legend

It's highly unfair to say that he isn't winning big matches where he is expected to win. For one thing, he hasn't lost to a lower ranked player since Paris last year.

In the last few months he has beaten - Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Gonzalez and even Federer. That's far more impressive than anyone else who has been ranked outside the top 10 in the last months, including Djokovic.

You can't possibly expect a player from outside the top 10 to win against people from inside it all the time. He has far exceeded what he was expected to do.

Salmon · Tennis legend

^ I forgot Haas.

mjd · Challenger qualifying

Andy has groin injury, surely that would explain 6-1 6-0
It may have been posted on here somewhere but I cant see it, -

Great Britain Davis Cup captain John Lloyd has admitted Andy Murray is an injury doubt for next weekend's Euro-Africa zone quarter-final clash with Holland.

The 19-year-old Scot was convincingly beaten by Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals of the Sony Ericsson Open and looks set to remain just on the cusp of the top 10 in the next week's ATP rankings.

Lloyd, who will be able to call upon the returning Tim Henman for the tie, said the injury - thought to be a groin problem - has left Murray's participation in doubt: "We don't yet know the full extent of Andy's injury but I believe he was injured in training on Thursday.
"I just felt there was something wrong with Andy - it's hard for me to think he could lose 6-1 6-0 to anyone if he was fit. We must now wait for Andy to join the squad this week when we can assess his condition.

Lloyd added: "Clearly we want Andy to be in the team against the Netherlands but we are not panic-stricken."

Source - Daily Mail

-- Edited by mjd at 16:11, 2007-04-01

Drew · Apr 1, 2007

The Panda Bear wrote:

What I don't understand is why people everywhere are making it sound like Andy is in some kind of trouble with his career? Everyone loses matches...

Fed lost to Canas twice, so is he going to lose his world number one position soon?

Arka is bang on. Lets settle down.

He is 19...and in his words.... "worst match ever played on the ATP tour".

He has over 10 years to go in his career...he will loose many more games.
He has been on such a great run....a defeat always gives time to reflect. Andy Andy has shown that he has the mental ability to come back.

It took Andy 6 months last year to rack up 20 wins...this year it has taken 3 !

So it will be interesting to see how he responds to that defeat...but it may turn out to be the best thing to happen to him this year so far.

john · Top national player

Hear hear

Drew · Apr 1, 2007

Congrats to Novak for beating Canas...6-3 6-2 6-4...becomes the youngest Miami champion.

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

Drew wrote:
...but it may turn out to be the best thing to happen to him this year so far.

Could be. He has said that losing badly to Chela in the AO last year gave him a wake-up call that he had work to do, hopefully this will do the same.

I would love to know if Brad gave him the wrong tactics, if he just could not execute the tactics, or if he did not like the tactics and so just could not play well. . .

Now for the clay season. How good a coach is Brad for clay? Roddick doesn't exactly shine there!

scoobsuk · Club Coach

I can't help feeling that some of the criticism of Andy not performing as we would hope sometimes is from a desire in the hearts of some to see Andy change his whole style of game into an aggressive attacking player. They saw how he played against Nadal at the Australian Open and believe he should play all his matches that way.

I disagree emphatically with that judgement. Andy must stay true to the style of play that works for him and that is to predominantly defend in the hopes of either having a weak response to attack and put away, or drawing the error from his opponent.

It's the same sort of impetus that has driven some Nadal fans to demand he change his entire game to be more like Federer and to attack much more. That's not who Nadal is. He obviously does want to shorten points when he can but the basic structure of his game is unlikely to change. Same with Murray. Murray's gameplan is going to change from match to match depending on what's on the other side of the net. Sometimes that will mean being aggressive, sometimes it will mean being patient and outlasting the opposition. This latter option may not be as dramatic or visually impressive as an attacking game but it's very effective if done well and that is what matters.

I believe Murray's occasional problems stem from having almost too much game, too many options. If you have one style of play you have one gameplan and it's all quite straightforward. Murray has so many choices that at times bad decisions are inevitable at this point in his career. He hasn't yet finished slotting all the pieces of the puzzle into place and may not do so for another couple of years.

He does still have some fitness work to do but I believe criticisms on that front now are overblown and a hangover from his problems this time last year. He needs to avoid injury but I don't believe there's any reason to suspect he physically and mentally can't last a long event played over 3 sets right now - as for the Slams, we'll have to see.

The result to Djokovic, while disappointing, should be seen as one match, one result, and not blown up out of proportion. It seems clear that, while he chose not to speak of it, he was carrying another injury into that match and found it hard to compete with any effectiveness. In my mind it's a relief because I don't believe Murray is mentally that suspect as to lose 1 and 0 when he's not injured - not to anyone.

We can still look at 2 solid TMS events which, while not as impressive as young master Djokovic, nevertheless have cemented Andy's case as a very dangerous opponent and soon to be top 10 player. Let's hope he heals quickly, the Davis Cup tie goes well, and the clay season brings him good fortune.

aria81 · Club Coach

Great post Scoobs. The point about Andy having too much to his game is a very good one. It is easy to improve your play if you only have one gameplan out there, it's a bit harder when you have options on pretty much every shot. Andy clearly has work to do, but he is improving all the time. The forehand is a hundred times better than it was last year, and the serve, whilst still erratic, is becoming a weapon, he's coming into net more, his volleying is great although his approaches to net are still a bit hit and miss.

By all accounts against Goldstein he was serve-volleying a lot, then against Kendrick he was mostly on the line, then Mathieu was 1 and half sets of rubbish followed by a set and a half of quality, then half a set of quality against Roddick then the capitualtion against Nole where nothing was on.

The inconsistancies in his game is what is costing him just now - it's frustraiting how he can go out and look superb one day, then follow it up with a horrible performance. If it's frustrating for us, how much worse must it be for him? The guy is a perfectionist and although he's not as vocal about his ambitions or as outwardly confident about where his game is as Djokovic, I truly believe he knows that he has the game to beat anyone on any given day the problem is, he doesn't always make the right decision at this stage. It is getting better though.

Nole may very well turn out to be the better player out the two, but I would guess, biased as I am, that when Andy's game matures that he will be pretty damn good but I don't know. I think he has more room for improvement but we'll see. It should be fun.

-- Edited by aria81 at 01:18, 2007-04-02

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

scoobsuk wrote:

I can't help feeling that some of the criticism of Andy not performing as we would hope sometimes is from a desire in the hearts of some to see Andy change his whole style of game into an aggressive attacking player. They saw how he played against Nadal at the Australian Open and believe he should play all his matches that way.

I disagree emphatically with that judgement. Andy must stay true to the style of play that works for him and that is to predominantly defend in the hopes of either having a weak response to attack and put away, or drawing the error from his opponent.

It's the same sort of impetus that has driven some Nadal fans to demand he change his entire game to be more like Federer and to attack much more. That's not who Nadal is. He obviously does want to shorten points when he can but the basic structure of his game is unlikely to change. Same with Murray. Murray's gameplan is going to change from match to match depending on what's on the other side of the net. Sometimes that will mean being aggressive, sometimes it will mean being patient and outlasting the opposition. This latter option may not be as dramatic or visually impressive as an attacking game but it's very effective if done well and that is what matters.

I believe Murray's occasional problems stem from having almost too much game, too many options. If you have one style of play you have one gameplan and it's all quite straightforward. Murray has so many choices that at times bad decisions are inevitable at this point in his career. He hasn't yet finished slotting all the pieces of the puzzle into place and may not do so for another couple of years.

He does still have some fitness work to do but I believe criticisms on that front now are overblown and a hangover from his problems this time last year. He needs to avoid injury but I don't believe there's any reason to suspect he physically and mentally can't last a long event played over 3 sets right now - as for the Slams, we'll have to see.

The result to Djokovic, while disappointing, should be seen as one match, one result, and not blown up out of proportion. It seems clear that, while he chose not to speak of it, he was carrying another injury into that match and found it hard to compete with any effectiveness. In my mind it's a relief because I don't believe Murray is mentally that suspect as to lose 1 and 0 when he's not injured - not to anyone.

Well I disagree almost completely on nearly every point you've made.

Sure I have no problems with Andy playing cautiously against Kendrick or even Verdasco because they are going to make an error within the first few shots so why bother taking risks.

This debate has been going on since the late summer of 2005 when he played against Pavel and Clement at the US Open. There is even a thread on here about his style of play in those matches. I was right then and I am right now. Hey, even Brad Gilbert and Mark Petchey agree on this issue. Andy needs to play far more aggressively. You know what they practice in training: getting him to strike his first groundstroke far more aggressively. To take control of the rally.

It's one thing to be able to defend when your opponent has gained the initiative through a heavy first serve, or a strong return of your second serve. But giving up control of the point after your first serve, or when returning your opponent's second serve, is criminal at this level. Put simply, at the highest level, attack beats defence more times than not.

If Andy is to win a Grand Slam, it won't be done by outlasting opponent after opponent.

scoobsuk · Club Coach

You believe you are right - I disagree. I believe Murray needs to play more aggressively when it's advantageous to do so. I don't think he needs to play more aggressively, period.

You come from a fundamental point of view that defensive tennis is disadvantageous and that EVERY player should be seeking to attack at the earliest possible moment within the margins. Again, I disagree. Andy's strengths are not outhitting his opponents, it's outmaneouvering them. As Nadal backs himself to work his opponent around and find the open space to finish into, so does Andy. That's just his nature. You might feel that won't bring him success at the highest level, but frankly, that's going to be the way it is. Andy is 19 years old now - it's too late to remodel his game and his mentality as drastically as you would like. He needs to get better at what he does best and become more aware of when he should look to attack earlier - but turning him into Novak Djokovic will just break his game.

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

scoobsuk wrote:

You believe you are right - I disagree. I believe Murray needs to play more aggressively when it's advantageous to do so. I don't think he needs to play more aggressively, period.

You come from a fundamental point of view that defensive tennis is disadvantageous and that EVERY player should be seeking to attack at the earliest possible moment within the margins. Again, I disagree. Andy's strengths are not outhitting his opponents, it's outmaneouvering them. As Nadal backs himself to work his opponent around and find the open space to finish into, so does Andy. That's just his nature. You might feel that won't bring him success at the highest level, but frankly, that's going to be the way it is. Andy is 19 years old now - it's too late to remodel his game and his mentality as drastically as you would like. He needs to get better at what he does best and become more aware of when he should look to attack earlier - but turning him into Novak Djokovic will just break his game.

So you've managed to say that Andy's game is still maturing, developing, changing. Yet it's too late to remodel his game and his mentality. This about a player that can play serve and volley to a decent level, can hit outright winners on the return, can strike aggressive initial groundstrokes. And does so in numerous matches each year. Even in a single match, say Clement or Pavel at the US Open in 2005, Murray manages to play lengthy spells of both unbelievably passive tennis and outrageously aggressive tennis. Against Chela and Nadal in Australia he played expansive tennis to a very high standard. Yet according to you he can't remodel his game. Really? What is there to change apart from do more of what he has already shown he can do? The proof is there. It's on video. Shots, games, sets, matches. Evidence that he can play aggressive tennis.

To win a grand slam you are likely to have to beat two or more highly talented players that happen to be on-form that fortnight. If, like Nadal, you happen to be the fittest player on the tour, then you can outlast opponent after opponent and still win the title. But for other players that is a recipe for disaster. Australia - hot conditions, Roland Garros - long clay court rallies, US Open semis on Saturday, final on Sunday. If you win your quarter-final and your semi through outlasting your opponent, don't expect to win the final because you simply won't have the energy.

So he needs to improve his attacking game so it's ready for the moment when he needs it. And if he uses it in match situations, it is more likely that he will be able to land the shots in the US Open semi-final when his only realistic chance is victory before his energy reserves run out.

scoobsuk · Club Coach

There's a difference between tactics and mindset. Murray may find it advantagous in some situations to adopt a more aggressive posture - but I do not believe this will become second nature to him. His nature is to hang back and counterpunch.

What is there to change? His mentality. The mentality that he should be aggressive every opportunity he gets. He won't develop that attitude because he doesn't want to - that is not his nature. To do what you propose he would have to have a personality transplant into an aggressive attacking player by nature. That's not going to happen however much you might wish it.

So if it turns out that Murray is unable to win slams because of the way he plays, then perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. He can only be who he is. This is the way he plays. He may adjust his tactics in different situations but his first instinct is to hang back and see what happens. I don't think that is likely to change and I don't think he should be criticised for that. You have to take it or leave it, pretty much.