As impressive as James Blake was in his 6-3 6-3 victory over Andy Murray, this was an inept display from the scot, both in terms of the tactics he employed and the standard of his performance.

Right from the start it was clear that Blake was going to be aggressive, attacking second serves, even some first serves, punishing short balls, and coming to the net to put away easy volleys. Murray lost his opening service game but did enough to break straight back, held for 2-1 then looked in a decent position at 15-30. But that was as good as it got as a passive Murray proceeded to make countless unforced errors while letting Blake dictate the play. Reluctant to strike the ball with any pace, and unwilling to deploy his slice backhand, his short groundstrokes were little more than an invitation for Blake to dominate with fiercely struck forehands.

Serving at 5-2 Blake contributed three errors including a double fault to allow Murray to break but even then Andy continued his pattern of gifting his serve to his opponent with a combination of timid serving and unforced errors presenting James with the first set 6-3.

Those expecting a change of tactics once it was clear that plan A wasn't working, were to be disappointed as Murray made seven woeful errors to lose the opening two games of the second set. Hinting at a revival, there were moments of brilliance from Murray during the next three games: a delightful passing shot to break the Blake serve for 1-2,  a forehand pass, beautiful lob and trademark double-handed backhand down the line for a winner enabled him to break for 2-3. But abysmal serving, needless errors and a total reluctance to take control of the points cost him each time he went to serve and it was soon 2-5. A rare hold allowed Andy another game but Blake served out the match to love for an easy victory.

This was possibly Andy's most disappointing display of the year; Blake could hardly believe his luck to face an opponent intent on playing more like a practice partner than a serious tennis player; Murray made no effort to take Blake out of his comfort zone. There were enough unforced errors for a five set match nevermind a contest that lasted little more than an hour. It is hard to describe just how embarrassing this display was and how impotent the Murray game looked when compared to Blake's.

While achieving a rare high first serve percentage in the mid 60s, Andy's decision to reduce the pace seemed bizarre against an aggressive returner. After a couple of early aces on first serve and one second serve that aced a wrong-footed Blake, Murray rarely attempted to hit with pace nor did he manage to kick his serves high enough to trouble the returner. Seven times he lost serve as Blake stepped into timid offerings, striking outright winners and forcing errors from Murray who appeared slow to react to the return.  

And yet Andy possesses the weapons to challenge the best. He can serve aggressively, he can strike both his forehand and his double-handed backhand with enough pace to penetrate defences. He can construct points, moving his opponent around the court, challenging them to hit low percentage shots. Sadly none of this was on display in Hamburg.

In truth Andy practically gave James Blake a free pass into the next round.

That match was painful to watch. Even Judy looked glum and the commentators could scarcely believe Andy's unwillingness to take the initiative. By the end Andy was totally frustrated, throwing his racquet about and was perhaps fortunate not to get an official warning.

I know his tactics worked against Monfils but after the very first game you could tell he was going to have to do more if he was to beat Blake. I thought Blake was good rather than superb. He hit a lot of winners, and his return of the Murray serve was brutal. But there were also plenty of errors and he lost his own serve four times largely through his errors though Andy did play one great game to break.

It seems as though all confidence has gone from the serve. He almost expects to be broken each time he serves. There must be a strong case to select the new coach on the sole basis of whether he understands about serving. Forget everything else. Any other top 100 tennis player who sees the videotape of that match will know exactly how to play against Andy and especially how to treat his serve.

RJA wrote:

---

His tatctics only worked against Monfils because of his opponents woeful performance. If he thought the same kind of thing would do the job against Blake he simply isn't thinking straight and an unwillingness to change tactics when things are going wrong is madness. It's bad enough to self destruct in an all out attacking frenzy like Monfils did but to throw a match away by making countless errors when you are playing safety first tennis is simply criminal. For me his new coach must have two priorities. 1. The serve (obvious reasons alreday discused) 2. The balance between attack and defence. Obviously Andy doesn't want to be playing all out attacking tennis but he is clearly in a total mess about how he should be playing. A balance needs to be found.

---

I'm in total agreement. I've seen numerous Murray matches in which he has changed tactics in the middle of the match when a one-sided first set has made it clear that plan A wasn't working so it was difficult to understand why he didn't try something different in the second set.

Before the match Andy even mentioned the concern that Blake would use his forehand to dominate and yet there was no real attempt to keep the ball away from Blake's strength or to at least ask him to take on some low percentage shots.

I'm tempted to say that Andy overestimates his defensive skills and underestimates some of his attacking weapons. He wins a very low percentage of the points when in retrieving mode deep behind the baseline while the numbers on his drop shots and aggressive groundstrokes are normally in his favour.