Monday, January 31, 2011

Andy Murray Isn't The Player You Want Him To Be

For the last three years or so, Andy Murray established himself within the elite of the tennis game. He first caught the attention of the tennis world with his ability to match it against the top players. Someone to look to, who could break the Federer/Nadal stranglehold.

It’s a different perspective in the early stages of a player’s career. You look at their potential, what different things they bring to the table, and how they can progress in their career once they have ironed out those weaknesses. Then he made it into the top 5, defeated some top players, and became a Grand Slam contender. Everyone started to expect more from him.

After every loss, critics and tennis fans wrote about how Andy Murray needs to be more aggressive. After more Grand Slam disappointments following impressive Masters events results, it was changed to "Murray needs to be more aggressive to win a Grand Slam." This happens before and after every Slam, in particular at Wimbledon, often making big headlines. But this article isn’t about whether he should or not, but rather about this gap between what he wants to be, the way he wants to approach the game, compared to how everyone else wants him to approach the game.

This is a fair criticism if you’re not a fan of his tennis. But I’ve noticed that even plenty of his fans find it difficult to enjoy even his most straightforward wins, frustrated about why he is playing the way he is. Even if it's clear that he will breeze through a victory here. Many people are far more interested in the Andy Murray that shows up 10% of the time, with maybe half of that being his wins against Nadal, the one player that he can really admit to not being able to outlast or break down.

Can you really call yourself a fan if you don’t enjoy his normal style of playing? Or is that just being a fan of the player you wish he was? This is not a criticism, but something to ponder. I can see the dilemma here. There isn’t anyone else that plays like him.

The way I see it, Murray has had far too much success to figure out that he should do things differently, and he thinks tennis is too complicated and strategic to simply focus on whether he was passive or aggressive. He wants to figure out what shots his opponents hate playing, and hit as many of those as possible. He studies videos of his rivals playing. People often call him a true tennis strategist, because he bases his game around his opponent’s weaknesses, rather than his own strengths, like what the majority of players do. Though it doesn’t have to be a weakness, just whatever shot matches up well to his. Personally I’m not so sure that is the smartest thing to do, and sometimes he doesn't find anything. Using more of his strengths would greatly help his game, and make life easier.

Each year that passes, I am convinced he has decided on his own way to improving his game, and it’s not what people want from him. Before he made his rise up the rankings, he was inconsistent over the course of the year then he radically improved his fitness. He beefed up his serve, and went about improving as many gaping holes in his game.

The more he improved his fitness, the more it became a staple of his game. He also became more complete, to the point that it was always more likely he would break down your weakness, before you could get to his. Unless if he was having a bad serving day. He’s broken down Djokovic’s forehand before, Federer’s backhand and he’s outlasted Del Potro before. His return of serve ensured that he could engage in rallies far more often than players below him. Beating lower ranked players started to become a piece of cake, and with his quick, seemingly lazy movement, it was like he was on autopilot most of the time. He’d throw in a couple of flashes of brilliance, but importantly he knew he didn’t have to.

So if Andy Murray isn’t going to be more aggressive in the traditional sense, what could he do? He could start with his favourite backhand, the side he’s more confident with. Rip some more big backhands flat and hard crosscourt, and change it up down-the-line more often. He could serve-and-volley a bit. That’s smart tennis after all, isn’t it, just like how he likes to be seen?

4 comments:

Ostiose Vagrant said...

I kind of share your views on Murray's game and his grand slam potential. It boils down to this for me: If your game is to expose the other guys weakness then you may have to vary your game alot between opponents. That means you're not really a master of any one style and that your game will require alot more thinking and intuition than someone like Sampras or Nadal. Those guys made minor adjustments to their opponent but their default game was enough to overwhelm most guys. There's something deterministic about the way those multi slam champions impose their strengths on the court. Mecir and Murray and that school of game can be quite successful but yet to be proven a formula for success at slams.

Krystle Lee said...

Not yet, but Murray has gotten quite far with it. I don't think Murray has to base his whole game around strengths, but he could perhaps figure out more what his favourite patterns of play are.

The Fan Child said...

Great title, and so true. Interesting angle on Andy. Hey, he's still near the top in Prize money for 2011, so while fans may be disappointed, his bank account is not.

Terrekain said...

Sure, better to play to your own strengths than compromise them to play to your opponent's weaknesses