It has probably been discussed in the past but I feel this needs to be investigated further. They are many very nice Murray fans on this forum so I want to be clear from post 1 that this thread has no purpose to upset them but understand besides the nationalistic support for Andy, what motivates them and maybe more importantly why would a non Brit run for him, like I could run for a Russian, a Swiss, or a Cypriot, for instance.

Murray has certainly mellowed and lost this capricious-bad-singing Diva trait that not so long ago made him my tennis enemy number 1. He is now pretty mature and handles media, defeats and victories like a real gentleman. He has a great sense of anticipation, court coverage and amazing returning skills.

Yet I simply cannot stand his game! I compared him once to Mecir (and I still think he could have become one) but I now have to strongly retract those words. Mecir was a joy to watch and main aim was to constantly wrong footing his opponent or distance them from the ball, making the game look very easy. Murray doesn’t do that. He now simply plays the dirty game of Brad Gilbert and that has now sealed his fate as a good retriever. Nothing more. The match against Kendrick was so annoying. It was a firework of unforced errors and frustration from the American and balls pushed back over the net by Andy. Not a nice match in any way. It reminded me this FO match last year against Monfils were both reached an abysmal level of tennis which made a Wilander v Nystrom match a gem in comparison.

I did not see his match against Haas last week at IW but read Haas interview which as one would expect from him, let go a lot of frustration. Comparing Murray’s pace to Junior level. Those words say it all:

“Q. You were quite successful at saving breakpoints. I think you served 11 out of 13, where he tends to get a little bit defensive?
TOMMY HAAS: You think he was offensive any time else?
Q. Sorry?
TOMMY HAAS: Do you think he was offensive at some other points during the match?
Q. I think he was, but my question is --
TOMMY HAAS: I don't think he was. He plays very defensive. That's his game. He plays slice, he moves around the ball, but there's very few times he goes for it, or, you know, he occasionally hits big backhand or goes for a forehand. But pretty much when it's in the rally, he kind of tries to let the other opponent maybe force an error, but he doesn't really play offensive.”
This is becoming more and more obvious now and clearly Brad is behind this strategy. He taught him how “not to lose” or call it winning ugly. This is fine and players like that will always be around and successful as well. I still think he could have taken more risk and play winners more often. He has the skills but sadly he used them to defend and simply releases more rope for his opponent to hang themselves. Murray fans might not care much but this tactic in my view is not going to work in the long run. Out of 7 matches in a Slam, he is bound to win many matches against soft or off-form players but surely he will meet one towards the end of the second week who will have a hot day and whose game won’t depend on the opponent form but on his own like Djoko, Federer and others. Simply look at Brad, he won ugly but lost pretty much everything else.

Well Tenez, I think we had a conversation about Murray once. I don't take to his game at all and I don't know what his gameplan is when he takes the court. When I hear Jonathan Overend talk about Murray I wonder if it's the same player I'm watching.

Now, I'm not sure I would blame Brad Gilbert entirely. What Brad did with both Andre was bring consistency and strategy to his naturally offensive baseline game. Long before Andy hired Brad Gilbert, Andy has had those defensive instincts watching him in Wimbledon in 2005 and 2006. I wouldn't put it to been brought up on clay in Spain either, Svetlana Kuznetsova and Marat Safin trained in Spain and they both go for their shots.

By the way, when it was reported Andy hit a 145mph serve in San Jose in February, I understand that was wrong and it was 125mph.

Very good points Laurie. I never liked Brad as an individual or a player so I tend to blame him unfairly for everything. I recognise he is turning Murray into a more stable, winning character so he knows his stuff.

However, he could not take Roddick beyond Federer or even Agassi beyond Sampras. Probably too big a task even for him and i feel he won't take Murray beyond Federer, Nadal and Djoko. Murray will win all the off day matches against Gasquet as well (and I know this latter is bound to have many) but I can't see him past an inform Gasquet either. So isn't it time he develops a more agressive game?

Think the Mathieu match proves your point Tenez...

Gilbert might have been the master of winning ugly, but how many Slams did it get him? It's a great quality to have, being able to win ugly, but Murray really shouldn't let it become his primary tactic; he has a nice repertiore of shots and could win 'pretty' if he wanted to.

I saw him playing some nice stuff at San Jose, some serve volleying and clever shotmaking, but at IW and Miami he's just eliciting mistakes from his opponent, and like you say, against an on form player, it simply won't work. I agree about Gasquet, we saw him annihilate Murray in the Toronto semi-finals, during one of the rare weeks he was feeling confident.

He's got the potential to be an excellent player, no matter how he plays, but I can't help feeling he could be a great one playing 'pretty' - and obviously much easier on the eye too.

I knew you would agree with me. ;)

I think at the 5/3 in the second they shared the same amount of unforced errors, which means that the 6/2 5/3 score was down to PHM making the points. It was clear that when the crushing time was coming, PHM would make nervous errors and as expected Murray cashed in on it. But it could easily have been an easy victory to the French guy and my point says that Murray will always be at the mercy of a player in form.

Isn't it amazing that despite Mathieu making a breakthrough in 2002 (5 years ago!), he still looks and plays like a boy. I have seen no progress in his game.

I put it down to the Davis Cup final when he was 2 sets up against Youzny and lost the cup in front of the Parisians.

Well PHM is sadly part of a trend in French tennis.. achieve a lot of success at junior level, look like a real star for the future and then stall and not develop.

Gasquet.. Monfils.. and wasn't Nicholas Mahut a junior slam champion or something? :shrug:

I don't understand what Andy Murrays best shot is? I think I have previously said that he reminds me of Hewitt when his counterpunch game was working at the height of his career, but there is only so long that game can work once players on the tour play Murray more and more they will realise his weaknesses. Even Nadal, who has serious weapons with a ferocious forehand and a stinging backhand, is working to improve his game and has been found out by other players on the tour.
Murray has to develop a real weapon; as overcoming Roddicks serve has been A-Rods downfall...so will overcoming Murrays counterpunch game be his...

Why is a player like Murray who's over 6 ft tall counterpucnhing anyway? For me that's pathetic. Look at Monfils as well. Is this how modern Tennis is going? Guys over 6 ft reacting as opposed to dictating?

I don't get it.

Bump.

May I invite you to read my initial post again.

I've said on a different thread that Murrays overconfidence will be his undoing...he came acting as if he's a double GS winner...and he found Djoko was preparing while he was talking...He needs to get back to the hard working Murray, on the training court-not talking shop.
Murray has been embarrassed tonight by a player who he said had "solid shots" but who actually played him at his own game...i.e. drop shots, drop volleys, acute angles...and a tremendous variety from Novak which defied Murrays blunt and incorrect appraisal about his opponent. Actually, Djoko outplayed Murray using Murrays style; the usual mix of shotmaking we expect from Murray himself!

Yep true. Like most good attackers, they can also counter-punch (defend) too but rarely use this tactic unfortunately. Federer was one of the first to do it and that was the turning point to winning against Hewitt and the likes. Djoko learnt that lesson too and i wish gasquet would follow suit too. (this sends us back to the interesting thread created by Darky "Sampras could not rally" which though I disagree with the form, raised some very good points)

I am not saying that is always the way to win but for offensive players it is a good way to start a match and then become more agressive as the match and confidence builds.

It seems that one-dimensional players have some success but are then worked out and taken apart . I hope Murray doesnt fall into that trap .He certainly has the weapons to play more aggressively .All the great players have had to adapt their games at some point to become more all rounded .
Im not sure how good a coach Gilbert is in technical aspects of the game but he certainly seems to have helped with Murrays mental attitude and fitness . Why did Roddick dump him though ?

Murray's losing ugly too :doh: roflmao

could be the best thing that's happened to Murray - a sharp slap when he seemed to be getting a tad overconfident.