The Tennis Thread
Discussion
Justices said:
Well there you go. Novak wanted it more, came to fight all the way through and knew Andy would break. On top of that there is not a chance in the universe Novak will even think about defeat with Mauresmo in Andy's corner. That might have spurred him on to serve up that bagel 
The problem is simple one, Andy could win every single slam of the year at will. Where he fails against Novak/Rafa 7/10 is mentally, no other area. So why on earth hire one of the biggest chokers in women's tennis if falling apart is your weakness? Ignore the issue of having a female coach (I've already explained why I personally believe this is a bad idea), but you cannot add someone to your team that knows nothing about dealing with pressure and "won" their first slam through not actually having to play a semi-final or final. Mauresmo's game was best suited to grass and being one of the very few women that serve and volley (quite effectively I might add) she should have wrapped up Wimbledon a couple of times and her one win was by virtue of a lucky draw that she barely managed choked her way through a weak draw. Not a Williams sister or Hingis in sight. She may be a lovely girl but she is out of her depth and has absolutely nothing to bring to Andy Murray's game physically or mentally.
When Andy wins, which he was doing once he decided he wanted to play tennis at the end of last season, suddenly credit is (undeservedly) dished out. Andy loses and suddenly "it's a new relationship, she has barely spent time with him and her work won't kick in just yet". What a load of tosh!
IMO it's the biggest mistake of his career, everything else was in place after years of hard work for him to add lots of slams to the CV (thanks to his loyal old team). With them in place this final would have been a different story, certainly wouldn't have gotten any bagels! If he wants a woman so badly, bring in Martina Navratilova I say. Style, grace, longevity and the mentally strongest woman to ever play the game.
Oh well....
I do agree with your logic, I don't know whether Mauresmo is a hinderance but she's definitely not a winner in the sense Lendl was. I see the biggest problem as being whether Andy Murray himself recognises his self destruction as a problem or as others seem to think it's just venting and some people are just more self deprecating on court than others. To me it just seems like at some points his tennis is secondary to his rage at whatever/whoever he focuses on. The problem is simple one, Andy could win every single slam of the year at will. Where he fails against Novak/Rafa 7/10 is mentally, no other area. So why on earth hire one of the biggest chokers in women's tennis if falling apart is your weakness? Ignore the issue of having a female coach (I've already explained why I personally believe this is a bad idea), but you cannot add someone to your team that knows nothing about dealing with pressure and "won" their first slam through not actually having to play a semi-final or final. Mauresmo's game was best suited to grass and being one of the very few women that serve and volley (quite effectively I might add) she should have wrapped up Wimbledon a couple of times and her one win was by virtue of a lucky draw that she barely managed choked her way through a weak draw. Not a Williams sister or Hingis in sight. She may be a lovely girl but she is out of her depth and has absolutely nothing to bring to Andy Murray's game physically or mentally.
When Andy wins, which he was doing once he decided he wanted to play tennis at the end of last season, suddenly credit is (undeservedly) dished out. Andy loses and suddenly "it's a new relationship, she has barely spent time with him and her work won't kick in just yet". What a load of tosh!
IMO it's the biggest mistake of his career, everything else was in place after years of hard work for him to add lots of slams to the CV (thanks to his loyal old team). With them in place this final would have been a different story, certainly wouldn't have gotten any bagels! If he wants a woman so badly, bring in Martina Navratilova I say. Style, grace, longevity and the mentally strongest woman to ever play the game.
Oh well....
The only other sportsman (big stretch calling snooker a sport) I'm aware of recently who had this issue was Ronnie O'Sullivan, he would play a bad shot or have a bad few frames which would send him over the edge. Steve Peters has a book which if you read explains this pretty well.
Murrays chimp seems to take hold and then it's just a fast route down. I really don't agree Murray should be looking back and settling for what he's achieved. He's 27 and with some help he could really overcome the issue because in tennis terms he's right up there, no one can say he was passive in this tournament.
It struck me that Andy was hitting too many balls mid-court and just not deep or hard enough. Too many balls kicking up into his opponents prime hitting zone.
Novak, by comparison seemed to be pinning Andy on to the back-foot at the base-line and invariably dictating the play from there. Andy can run all day long as we know but if he's doing that he's not really controlling the point. Not a pleasant place to be and very frustrating. I think he then gets tight and, as we know, that's the enemy of a good swing. He definitely has a 'yip' in that area I think.
Novak, by comparison seemed to be pinning Andy on to the back-foot at the base-line and invariably dictating the play from there. Andy can run all day long as we know but if he's doing that he's not really controlling the point. Not a pleasant place to be and very frustrating. I think he then gets tight and, as we know, that's the enemy of a good swing. He definitely has a 'yip' in that area I think.
Justices said:
Well there you go. Novak wanted it more, came to fight all the way through and knew Andy would break. On top of that there is not a chance in the universe Novak will even think about defeat with Mauresmo in Andy's corner. That might have spurred him on to serve up that bagel
The problem is simple one, Andy could win every single slam of the year at will. Where he fails against Novak/Rafa 7/10 is mentally, no other area. So why on earth hire one of the biggest chokers in women's tennis if falling apart is your weakness? Ignore the issue of having a female coach (I've already explained why I personally believe this is a bad idea), but you cannot add someone to your team that knows nothing about dealing with pressure and "won" their first slam through not actually having to play a semi-final or final. Mauresmo's game was best suited to grass and being one of the very few women that serve and volley (quite effectively I might add) she should have wrapped up Wimbledon a couple of times and her one win was by virtue of a lucky draw that she barely managed choked her way through a weak draw. Not a Williams sister or Hingis in sight. She may be a lovely girl but she is out of her depth and has absolutely nothing to bring to Andy Murray's game physically or mentally.
When Andy wins, which he was doing once he decided he wanted to play tennis at the end of last season, suddenly credit is (undeservedly) dished out. Andy loses and suddenly "it's a new relationship, she has barely spent time with him and her work won't kick in just yet". What a load of tosh!
IMO it's the biggest mistake of his career, everything else was in place after years of hard work for him to add lots of slams to the CV (thanks to his loyal old team). With them in place this final would have been a different story, certainly wouldn't have gotten any bagels! If he wants a woman so badly, bring in Martina Navratilova I say. Style, grace, longevity and the mentally strongest woman to ever play the game.
Oh well....
Seriously your post is utter and complete nonsense. Bagels can happen to any top player, Rafa, Roger and even Nole has had it dished out to them.The problem is simple one, Andy could win every single slam of the year at will. Where he fails against Novak/Rafa 7/10 is mentally, no other area. So why on earth hire one of the biggest chokers in women's tennis if falling apart is your weakness? Ignore the issue of having a female coach (I've already explained why I personally believe this is a bad idea), but you cannot add someone to your team that knows nothing about dealing with pressure and "won" their first slam through not actually having to play a semi-final or final. Mauresmo's game was best suited to grass and being one of the very few women that serve and volley (quite effectively I might add) she should have wrapped up Wimbledon a couple of times and her one win was by virtue of a lucky draw that she barely managed choked her way through a weak draw. Not a Williams sister or Hingis in sight. She may be a lovely girl but she is out of her depth and has absolutely nothing to bring to Andy Murray's game physically or mentally.
When Andy wins, which he was doing once he decided he wanted to play tennis at the end of last season, suddenly credit is (undeservedly) dished out. Andy loses and suddenly "it's a new relationship, she has barely spent time with him and her work won't kick in just yet". What a load of tosh!
IMO it's the biggest mistake of his career, everything else was in place after years of hard work for him to add lots of slams to the CV (thanks to his loyal old team). With them in place this final would have been a different story, certainly wouldn't have gotten any bagels! If he wants a woman so badly, bring in Martina Navratilova I say. Style, grace, longevity and the mentally strongest woman to ever play the game.
Oh well....
No one who is a choker would have had the mental fortitude to win multiple slams including Wimbledon which both Murray and Mauresmo has done. Do come back and offer us your pearls of wisdom when you come around to adding multiple slams and titles to your CV. Armchair critics at its absolute best.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens at the end of 2015 if Murray made the correct coaching change. Murray is currently no.2 in the Live Race Rankings so not a bad place to start the year.
RichB said:
Never heard the term bagel so I looked it up and see it's the same as losing a set to love. Presumably it's another daft Americanism creeping into the sport via the American commentators that seem to proliferate?
Just one of those daft things to describe a whitewash set. Bagels for love sets and breadsticks for getting beat 6-1 in a set.lambysdad said:
Sounds like someone on here is a little bit too much in love with And Murray 
I'm not saying he isn't a good player, he clearly is...but Murray is number 4 in the world for a reason.
He is not good enough to be in the top 3.
He's definitely good enough. it's just that without Lendl, he's not quite mentally tough enough. I'm not saying he isn't a good player, he clearly is...but Murray is number 4 in the world for a reason.
He is not good enough to be in the top 3.
Bradgate said:
lambysdad said:
Sounds like someone on here is a little bit too much in love with And Murray
I'm not saying he isn't a good player, he clearly is...but Murray is number 4 in the world for a reason.
He is not good enough to be in the top 3.
He's definitely good enough. it's just that without Lendl, he's not quite mentally tough enough. I'm not saying he isn't a good player, he clearly is...but Murray is number 4 in the world for a reason.
He is not good enough to be in the top 3.
Murray has thrown away countless matches when he was in winning positions but so has....
Nadal at 2012 AO final when he could and should have beaten Djokovic in the 5th set but didn't. He has also lost 7 consecutive matches to Djokovic during 11-12 so that shows how good Djokovic is. But let's not count that shall we?
Federer lost some close matches to Rafa and in USO '10 and '11, failed to convert match point against Djokovic. But let's not count that shall we?
Djokovic has lost countless times to both Federer and Nadal and could've and should have beaten Nadal at the French Open in 2012, 2013 SF when he was leading in the 5th set and had Rafa on the ropes in 2014. But let's not count that shall we?
amare32 said:
Out comes all the armchair experts about players mental fragility...
Murray has thrown away countless matches when he was in winning positions but so has....
Nadal at 2012 AO final when he could and should have beaten Djokovic in the 5th set but didn't. He has also lost 7 consecutive matches to Djokovic during 11-12 so that shows how good Djokovic is. But let's not count that shall we?
Federer lost some close matches to Rafa and in USO '10 and '11, failed to convert match point against Djokovic. But let's not count that shall we?
Djokovic has lost countless times to both Federer and Nadal and could've and should have beaten Nadal at the French Open in 2012, 2013 SF when he was leading in the 5th set and had Rafa on the ropes in 2014. But let's not count that shall we?
Amare these are all facts but I really can't remember the last time the 3 players above him basically threw a match because they were so angry over something that has already happened.Murray has thrown away countless matches when he was in winning positions but so has....
Nadal at 2012 AO final when he could and should have beaten Djokovic in the 5th set but didn't. He has also lost 7 consecutive matches to Djokovic during 11-12 so that shows how good Djokovic is. But let's not count that shall we?
Federer lost some close matches to Rafa and in USO '10 and '11, failed to convert match point against Djokovic. But let's not count that shall we?
Djokovic has lost countless times to both Federer and Nadal and could've and should have beaten Nadal at the French Open in 2012, 2013 SF when he was leading in the 5th set and had Rafa on the ropes in 2014. But let's not count that shall we?
I didn't even realise Murray smashed his rackets after the end of the match, I think this shows Murray was far too angry to do anything productive after a certain point that evening.
I enjoy the challenge of supporting Murray, I mean supporting Djokovic would be pretty easy. He goes out there and wins, he knows all he has to do is better the person on the other side of the net in that small time frame. Murray seems to think he needs to have these perfect throws of the dice every time and when he gets a bad roll it's pretty much game over.
Who knows, even if Murray didn't have a breakdown and he had stepped it up Djokovic probably would have been able to match him and surpass him. The point is that would have been a great watch, as a tennis supporter I would have no excuses such as when Murray lost to Federer in Wimbledon 2012. Fed played better, Murray did his best and he made lots of fans with his effort + honesty at the end.
It's sad in the way a drug addict who's been clean reverts back to his habit how Murray has reverted back to his pre grand slam win petulance, I also don't think there's anyone strong enough in his team to step up and tell him to at least try approaching the game differently with regards to his mindset. He needs someone like McEnroe to not take any s
t and not play along/nurse him after his breakdowns.Watching the Murray interview post match is puzzling, he's justifying his loss by saying stuff like you can't win every tournament. I don't think anyone in the history of tennis has ever considered that to be remotely achievable. I do think it's possible to go through a pro tennis career without having a breakdown especially at grandslam level considering what small percentage of all matches are grand slams and as Murray has said numerous times "These are the tournaments we put all the hard work in for." Now he's saying that he is happy to take part. You've got to question where his mind is.
Edited by Babw on Monday 2nd February 20:34
Babw said:
It's sad in the way a drug addict who's been clean reverts back to his habit how Murray has reverted back to his pre grand slam win petulance, I also don't think there's anyone strong enough in his team to step up and tell him to at least try approaching the game differently with regards to his mindset. He needs someone like McEnroe to not take any st and not play along/nurse him after his breakdowns.
Like Lendl, you mean?t and not play along/nurse him after his breakdowns.Babw said:
JonRB said:
Like Lendl, you mean?
I'd like to be optimistic and think there are others who can help apart from just Lendl. I think that ship has sailed and Lendl doesn't seem like the samaritan type to go back to because he feels sorry.I have no idea if that is true or not, but it might be.
JonRB said:
The official line is that Lendl couldn't commit to Murray's schedule and the level of commitment required, and hence there was a parting of the ways.
I have no idea if that is true or not, but it might be.
It may well be but Lendl may also have had enough. He might be one of the people not surprised at Murrays apparent breakdown because he realised how ingrained into his DNA this issue was.I have no idea if that is true or not, but it might be.
Also do the people in Murrays box not get annoyed at the swearing and him using them as the source of his frustration. Or is it he gets pissed during the match, he says sorry after the match and repeat?
Babw said:
It may well be but Lendl may also have had enough. He might be one of the people not surprised at Murrays apparent breakdown because he realised how ingrained into his DNA this issue was.
It does seem to be pretty endemic. I used to beat myself up a lot (emotionally and metaphorically) and worry too much what other people thought about me. So in some ways I can kind of sympathise with Murray.
As I've got older, I've come to realise that I give far less of a s
t now. Maybe he needs to do the same. He's a bloody good tennis player; perhaps he needs to concentrate on that fact rather than beating himself up with frustration when he messes up. Nobody is perfect. JonRB said:
It does seem to be pretty endemic.
I used to beat myself up a lot (emotionally and metaphorically) and worry too much what other people thought about me. So in some ways I can kind of sympathise with Murray.
As I've got older, I've come to realise that I give far less of a st now. Maybe he needs to do the same. He's a bloody good tennis player; perhaps he needs to concentrate on that fact rather than beating himself up with frustration when he messes up. Nobody is perfect.
Same here but I was a choker. I'm a few months younger than Murray and I've been playing tennis for about 20 years at club/BUCS/amateur LTA so would have no idea on what it'd be like at grandslam scrutiny but tennis is pretty complex and I know personally how it can mess with your mind. I used to beat myself up a lot (emotionally and metaphorically) and worry too much what other people thought about me. So in some ways I can kind of sympathise with Murray.
As I've got older, I've come to realise that I give far less of a s
t now. Maybe he needs to do the same. He's a bloody good tennis player; perhaps he needs to concentrate on that fact rather than beating himself up with frustration when he messes up. Nobody is perfect. It took me probably 3 years of gradual change with the help of a good coach to get over it, when I was a choker I used to essentially over prepare for matches. 5 days before a tournament I would be almost psychotic in my preparation and overly sensitive to any changes. I would go on the court and choke from a winning position then the pattern would repeat. Next time I would try to prepare even "better", practice harder, do far more work in the gym in winter and put even more pressure on myself. I used to think that if I became a better player even if I got nervous I'd still be better than the player across the net instead you just fall from an even greater height.
Tennis is secondary to track and field for me and I really didn't understand choking because in my events (100m and 200m) there wasn't any time to choke. Good preparation in athletics was almost always followed by a good result at an amateur level bar some dodgy starts, results would be there.
I feel Murray is looking in the wrong draw (fitness) for his answer, he used to see a psychologist and he ought to try one again.
I find the criticism of Mauresmo ludicrous. The weaknesses of Murray's game haven't changed since he won his first Slam. Lendl was good for him, but he didn't give him a strong second serve that has since been lost and he didn't change his game from a primarily defensive one to anything else. Murray was undoubtedly mentally stronger when he won with Lendl, however since then he's undergone serious back surgery and had to rebuild.
If anything, Mauresmo appears to have begun to encourage Murray to be more aggressive and to shorten points. That he didn't manage to take advantage at 2-0 in the third set is not a surprise. He's never had the same ruthless ability of Federer, Djokovic or Nadal to seize small openings and shut out games when an opponent falters.
It's no co-incidence that watching Murray play is painful. He rarely sweeps lesser players away with short points. Instead his game has always been about the ability to return almost anything and force mistakes. It doesn't matter if it is the first round or the final, his natural game is one of creating openings rather than forcing them from the first groundstroke.
He was undone on Sunday by Djokovic finding a way to break his concentration, in a manner that I find distasteful, but nonetheless proved that Murray hasn't yet fully regained the resilience he had two years ago.
Murray didn't choke, he lost focus. Fatal against the calibre of opponent he was up against. I think Mauresmo is trying to make him more ruthless, but it will take time for the confidence in such a fundamental change to take hold.
He appears fitter and stronger. If the back is fixed, can he develop a stronger second serve? It would help immensely. It will be hard for him, but he and his team ought to take a lot of positives from the last fortnight.
If anything, Mauresmo appears to have begun to encourage Murray to be more aggressive and to shorten points. That he didn't manage to take advantage at 2-0 in the third set is not a surprise. He's never had the same ruthless ability of Federer, Djokovic or Nadal to seize small openings and shut out games when an opponent falters.
It's no co-incidence that watching Murray play is painful. He rarely sweeps lesser players away with short points. Instead his game has always been about the ability to return almost anything and force mistakes. It doesn't matter if it is the first round or the final, his natural game is one of creating openings rather than forcing them from the first groundstroke.
He was undone on Sunday by Djokovic finding a way to break his concentration, in a manner that I find distasteful, but nonetheless proved that Murray hasn't yet fully regained the resilience he had two years ago.
Murray didn't choke, he lost focus. Fatal against the calibre of opponent he was up against. I think Mauresmo is trying to make him more ruthless, but it will take time for the confidence in such a fundamental change to take hold.
He appears fitter and stronger. If the back is fixed, can he develop a stronger second serve? It would help immensely. It will be hard for him, but he and his team ought to take a lot of positives from the last fortnight.
Bradgate said:
lambysdad said:
Sounds like someone on here is a little bit too much in love with And Murray
I'm not saying he isn't a good player, he clearly is...but Murray is number 4 in the world for a reason.
He is not good enough to be in the top 3.
He's definitely good enough. it's just that without Lendl, he's not quite mentally tough enough. I'm not saying he isn't a good player, he clearly is...but Murray is number 4 in the world for a reason.
He is not good enough to be in the top 3.
To me he's becoming a bit like Ronnie O'sullivan, lots of talent but too much crap in his head. If you can't handle what's going on in your own head, how can you expect to figure out your opponent?
Leithen said:
I find the criticism of Mauresmo ludicrous. The weaknesses of Murray's game haven't changed since he won his first Slam. Lendl was good for him, but he didn't give him a strong second serve that has since been lost and he didn't change his game from a primarily defensive one to anything else. Murray was undoubtedly mentally stronger when he won with Lendl, however since then he's undergone serious back surgery and had to rebuild.
If anything, Mauresmo appears to have begun to encourage Murray to be more aggressive and to shorten points. That he didn't manage to take advantage at 2-0 in the third set is not a surprise. He's never had the same ruthless ability of Federer, Djokovic or Nadal to seize small openings and shut out games when an opponent falters.
It's no co-incidence that watching Murray play is painful. He rarely sweeps lesser players away with short points. Instead his game has always been about the ability to return almost anything and force mistakes. It doesn't matter if it is the first round or the final, his natural game is one of creating openings rather than forcing them from the first groundstroke.
He was undone on Sunday by Djokovic finding a way to break his concentration, in a manner that I find distasteful, but nonetheless proved that Murray hasn't yet fully regained the resilience he had two years ago.
Murray didn't choke, he lost focus. Fatal against the calibre of opponent he was up against. I think Mauresmo is trying to make him more ruthless, but it will take time for the confidence in such a fundamental change to take hold.
He appears fitter and stronger. If the back is fixed, can he develop a stronger second serve? It would help immensely. It will be hard for him, but he and his team ought to take a lot of positives from the last fortnight.
this!If anything, Mauresmo appears to have begun to encourage Murray to be more aggressive and to shorten points. That he didn't manage to take advantage at 2-0 in the third set is not a surprise. He's never had the same ruthless ability of Federer, Djokovic or Nadal to seize small openings and shut out games when an opponent falters.
It's no co-incidence that watching Murray play is painful. He rarely sweeps lesser players away with short points. Instead his game has always been about the ability to return almost anything and force mistakes. It doesn't matter if it is the first round or the final, his natural game is one of creating openings rather than forcing them from the first groundstroke.
He was undone on Sunday by Djokovic finding a way to break his concentration, in a manner that I find distasteful, but nonetheless proved that Murray hasn't yet fully regained the resilience he had two years ago.
Murray didn't choke, he lost focus. Fatal against the calibre of opponent he was up against. I think Mauresmo is trying to make him more ruthless, but it will take time for the confidence in such a fundamental change to take hold.
He appears fitter and stronger. If the back is fixed, can he develop a stronger second serve? It would help immensely. It will be hard for him, but he and his team ought to take a lot of positives from the last fortnight.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff