Andy Murray’s Chances at Wimbledon

I'm trying to suscribe to see the videos, but an error always appear, see below:

System Error Encountered!
Error


could not find valid list with the name Website+Subscribers

Could you please let me know how can a suscribe? thanks.

Gd video

this is easy. verdaco, gonzo and fed have a great backhand.

sorry, but doesn't that just affect rightys like gonzo and fed? verdascos a lefty it would go straight towards his forehand and take control of the point. I liked your analysis though i do feel that murray is a very good player but very often he slumps back into a defensive position and waiting for a mistake, rather then being aggressive and take risks. Though, i've been wrong before lemme know what you think

As much as I enjoy these videos and check back regularly I am a little concrened that the High-Performance Coaching Area that a few months again had a planned and stated release has been put on hold for these. Don't get me wrong I do enjoy seeing these and I find them interesting however I joined in the first place because I thought the site was an incredible coaching resource! It still is, no doubt however I just get the impression that there is huge concentration on the new whiteboard.

Will I was wondering if you had any more information on how the HP coaching is coming

Tentatively the end of this month. The advantage of the whiteboard is that it is WAAAAAAY faster to make a video. The greenscreen / editing of clips is very time consuming. W/the whiteboard I basically figure out what I want to say and get up there and film it. Much quicker.

This is all very interesting.

When Murray said he'd support any team that plays Wngland he was not serious. The interviewers were taking the mick out if scotland not qualifying, which they verified. He has an English girlfriend and is a quarter english himslef - that stuff about bhating England was all a load of tabloid rubbish. Don't believe it

Typical englishmans view, as soon as murray wins anything he'll be a brit, but if he loses he will be a scot. Its pathetic.

Answer huge forehand

I think because Roger and Feña both have a one handed backhand, and becouse of this both have a backhand with a lot of speed. And then, Verdasco is left handed.

..hmm......interesting query, young man.... is it that they're left handed?
.....I've yet to see the answer video....btw....

LOL.....hope I'm right~!

Marcus

Hi Will, YFB is great, but include captions on videos please!!! Im from Brazil and my english is not full. This will make it more comprehensive to peoples from others countries. Thanks!!!

Hi Will,

Great stuff as usual!
What I don't like in Murray's game is somewhat lack of aggressiveness. He doesn't take chances that other top players do, just like you showed on videos. He chews his opponents slowly, but it works only if a player is not at his best. Fed will take any opportunity to run around the ball and attack via forehand and every mediocre shot will be punished, so there will be no time for "chewing". Nadal, for example, has no mercy for such shots and materializes promptly. So, as I see it, Murray has some chance if Fed is not 100%, which is not the case I think. My prediction is that Murray will take one set at most, but things can turn to him if he takes the game to Fed's face and play really aggressive.

Regards
Đoković (Djokovic) fan

Hi Will,

Perhaps I should rephrase my previous disussion "Does Roddick have a chance" as:

"How should Roddick play Murray?"

Hey Michael. Yes, Roddick does have a shot. Obviously, he needs to serve very well -- not just a high percentage of first serves in, but also place the ball well. I suspect he'll do this because he's been serving well the entire tournament. He also needs to play to his forehand as much as possible and avoid extended backhand-to-backhand rallies w/Murray. Murray's backhand is waaaaay better than Roddick's.

Ultimately, I think Roddick's chances lie with his movement. If he moves well he's got a shot, because his movement will determine whether or not he's able to turn several defensive or neutral rallies into offensive opportunities. A few of those here or there can be the difference in a close match.

For comparison's sake, what struck me about the Serena - Dementieva match (an all-timer), was how well Dementieva was moving around her backhand to her forehand. It was very impressive and it allowed her to take the initiative away from Serena. Great footwork leads to great offense.

Hi Will, great analysis! It depends very much on how Roddick serves.

That reminds me of your previous discussion about serve placement. Unlike Agassi who plays the service return shots around baseline to cut the angle, Murray returns serves from way back. Roddick's serves can pull Murray way off the side, while the returns will be, inevitably, around the middle of the court. Roddick can move in to attack with his forehand if he is serving from the deuce court, or hit a forehand outside-in if he is serving from the ad court. I would expect a lot of points end up this way tomorrow.

P.S. Yours is the best tennis site ever! I'm your big fan! I look forward to seeing your "high performance coaching" section coming up. keep up the excellent work!

Looks like everyone assumes that this match (Murray vs. Federer at Wimbledon Final) is going to happen. Does Roddick have any chance on Murray at all? And why is that?

Hey Will,

Nice topic you chose to make up this question. Quite challenging.

In my opinion, I think that Murray isn't so good with all-around players with big forehands. From the latest game I saw Murray play with Ferrero, once Ferrero hits a speedy angled forehand then Murray doesn't return the ball so effectively and sets up a chance for the opponent to hit a winner.

Anyway, i'm not a big fan of Murrays' and don't watch his game might often so maybe my analysis is not so insightful.

Pete

since the whiteboard I can see you have 10x the number of comments on your blog...I think you are on the right track with that tool...its really cool to learn strategies from the pros using that board ! great idea Will !

if we talk about murray vs federer in a wimbledon final... i think murray isn't lucky to face federer, nowadays.. as federer is really a magical player, at his top form..
when you play against federer , you have to expect all types of groundstrokes with very high control...and that's so difficult...
for crowds, i think federer is like a fantastic artist, not just a tennis player,, i think everyone likes to see federer playing , espicially nowadays...
also, if murray advances 2-0 in sets ,, i'll still watch the match till the last point with no expectation , as i know that federer's mentality is very solid that enables him to change the situation comfortambly...
roger is a new roger starting from madrid's final against nadal , when he crushed nadal in two straight sets in spain , and on clay ,the preferable surface for nadal...
although, we all miss nadal in wimbledon , but i think even if nadal isn't injured , his chances against this federer would be much lower than before.. so i'm waiting for the first match between both after wimbledon ,, it will be really interesting...

murray needs to serve very well, high %, and he's not going to get too many looks on fed's service games. he needs to attack fed's 2nd ball. he needs to go for his double handed backhand down the line at every opportunity. this is what djokovic did in AO 2008. he needs to hit deep into fed's backhand corner. he needs to test federer from the baseline as he's not been tested yet. he needs to limit the short balls to federer especially as he can wing it off the forehand, best forehand of all time.

I remember from sports pyschology that a player always has a higher chance of winning his/her matches when they have the home court advantage - but that advantage becomes a disadvantage if the player makes the final. I think in recent years coaches managed to fix this problem in basketball, but I'm interested to see if this wil affect Murray if he makes the Wimbledon final on Sunday.

hi all...i think murray to be in no.3 ranking , between these fantastic players,, that wasn't by chance.. but actually murray is a complete tennis player: good server, controllable forehand and backhand from anywhere , and good volleyer... but also avery important element is his patience,, he can direct the game strongly by his mind more than his hands,, so we can see murray defends very well till he can get the oppotunity to attack,,,and he has fantastic selections for his shots with high variability... he was able to win over nadal and federer and other top players alot of times, and that was great...

I think Murray could have possitioned his feet differently, and hit a straight shot down the right side of the opponates court. If he attempted to do this, it would cause his opponate to change possitions from a back hand to a forhand shot and that takes longer for him to switch feet possition and weight possition by pushing himself toward the ball. So he is more likely to miss the shot, but if he does happen to get it over it would be a diagnal shot. Murray would then hit it back in another straight line drive from that angle. The opponiate would then have to run farther to the return Murray's shot.
All Murry has to do is change his feet position in the begining, and from there, he changes the way his opponate needs to be set up for the shot they thought they were getting.

What I think Andy should do in the final... Well I think Andy should LOSE in the final!! hahahaha Sorry for that! Thanks for your videos they are all great!!!

That's how Fed does it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auDI0CJM7N0

Hi Will,
really nice video!!

Sometimes is just boring seeing Murray trying to taking control of the point...he does lot of changes of spin in each shoot and sometimes for me he forgets to attack and it really happen when he plays with bigger players like nadal, fernando, federer...

he plays the point into the mistake of the opponent...and this kind of game doesn't attract me sometimes...

Diego

great analisys, let know the correct!

murray definitely got exploited by stan wawrinka last night with wawrinka's huge backhand. but the ball stays very low off murray's slice on a grass court and a murray/fed match-up this year could be very close.
last night's game (murray/wawrinka) is the best game i've seen since last years wimbledon fed/nadal final.

I would have prefer that your analysis be more specific rather than just merely saying that Murray's tactic is to vary his pace and look of his shots. While it is true at the most basic level Murray is what most may call a counter-puncher, his game has evolved by adding more complex yet subtle elements. I would have like to hear more about your take on what these elements are.

Also, Murray has winning records against both Federer and Verdasco.

Hi Will,
Here is a thought on that icon you use to show player and racket.

Why not put a smiley face on it? That means that the large circle is the player
and the thing sticking out is the racket.

You can then maybe avoid having to keep explaining that.
Just a thought.
Gary

Will;

great stuff, what about at the club level where a player may run around their forehand and hit a relatively strong, deep topspin shot but the player on the other side drop shots off the backhand--especially on clay. Over a period of a a few sets this can get tiring for the forehand hitter--trying to retrieve the drop shot.

I think Andy's slice would give more time for his opponents to turn around and hit an inside-out forehand.

Will,
Great video, as usual.
I would disagree only somewhat with your take. Rather than slicing the neutral backhand, when Murray drives the backhand to, e.g., Federer, and mixes that in w/ the DTL (down the line) backhand, using the full variety of spins & pace, he tends to slowly break down Federer's shot tolerance, to the point that F begins going for much too much too early in the points. So, I would think that hitting a big 2handed backhand cross court (since that is his better wing) would be the way to start the sequence that leads toward breaking down Federer or Gonzalez' game.

The story is a bit different w/ Verdasco, as he's a lefty. I would think peppering V's backhand w/ variety, then attacking his forehand wing (stronger side) when the court opens up, would be effective. Subsequent to the open-court attack to the forehand, the backhand wing is then open for the follow-up winner.

But, in my view, Murray should predicate his disruption of all these players on his backhand, as that shot has a) more variety and b) a more exception "top end," by which I mean that his attack 2H BH is better than his best forehand (in contrast to F, V and G).

I agree that Murray has done what you said above to beat Federer / Gonzalez in the past. My point was that if either of those guys are playing well -- particularly Federer -- they aren't going to break down.

Watching Wawrinka take advantage of Murray's forehand right now (2:30 pm EDT on 6/29). Seems there are many players who should but don't play the FH-FH diagonal w/ Murray as much as possible. Stan is the first one I've seen do it persistently.

In the last paragraph of my post the word, "exception" should read, "exceptional."

i dont know much about Gon, but federer's movement + insideout forehand=deadly

Murray, head to head leads verdasco 6-1, leads federer 6-2 and is tied with gonzalez 1-1. Just saying

I agree that Andy relies on making things difficult and complicated for his opponents; particularly on longer rallies. And he doesn't take control of points and dictate play early during rallies.

In his match against Ernests Gulbis, Andy murray made 5 unforced errors? Therefore, you certainly dont want to try to beat him at the consistency strategy.

Some good obersvations in the video. Murray shies from taking control of the points and depends a lot on forcing his opponents to make mistakes.

Murray has to stick to his style of play to beat Federer. If he tries too hard to overpower Federer on every point, he will lose by making too many mistakes. If Murray plays well, he has a good shot.

Great video as always Will.

Thanks Jeff. If Federer's at the top of his game it doesn't matter how well Murray plays -- Fed will still beat him. I don't think Murray should stray too far from the strategy he's used against Federer in the past but he's got to be more aggressive. The more pitches you throw to a great hitter the more chances they have to hit the ball out of the park.

Sorry Will but it it does matter how Murray plays, just look at head to head record. However, he still needs to beat him in GS to prove my point.

Well my point is that: Federer at his best > Murray at this best. I think that's a fair / accurate statement. Thus, if Federer plays his best then Murray's level is irrelevant because Federer will win regardless. Now, we have no idea how close to 100% either one will play should they meet up in the final. However, should this match up materialize I suspect Murray will put in a better performance than last year's USO.

I agree, it is a fair statement. Than again, I believe that Murray's record vs. Federer it's not only about Federer not playing his best. It must be something about Murray's game as well. Than again, Grand Slams are a whole different animal, as they say. And Murray needs to get one before I can put my money on him :-)

hey Will,
I have already subscribed to your website. Do I have to subacribe again every time I want to see the answer for each quiz.

Dan

If you have cookies disabled on your browser you will be re-prompted each time you visit.

The interesting thing is that, apart from that USO final, Murray has a great record against Fed. I haven't seen any of his wins though, so I'm not sure exactly how he does it. But he obviously has some ways of counteracting Fed's firepower.

He just might be a player who has the game to beat him, like Nalbandian or Djokovic... Beating Federer in GS is a bit more difficult, but I think he can do it.
With a little help of mono shouldn't be a problem at all :-)

I am a tennis player, not pro, but i know something about this, i think that this is dangerous play because they can send a parallel shot and leave without any possibility to catch that ball, it would be effective if the match is played in grass, where returning that kind of shot with a great amount of speed is more difficult, that's my opinion idon't know if its right, i'm not a teacher

SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH

Another great video.

if Murray is like Nadal, why is he so bad on clay ?

Nadal has a bigger forehand and moves better on clay. His groundstrokes are harder to attack on clay than Murray's.

bigger forhand ? that's what I hear but I see that nadal's forhand is kind of slow, lot of topspin on it but how does this make it that usefull on clay ? I believe that murray has stronger strokes which seems to give him a better game on grass or hard court, no ?
and could you explain for me plz why is nadal groudstrokes harder to attack on clay ? (I know that's not the subject but it will help me clear some ideas about the difference in styles between nadal and murray)
thnx :)

Nadal has more directional control over his forehand that Murray. All that topspin allows him to hit more angles / move his opponent around the court. Nadal's forehand is difficult to attack because the trajectory of the shot / topspin cause it to kick up very high, putting the ball above most player's comfortable contact height. Finally, Nadal's reverse forehand is the best defensive shot in the game. Even if he's completely out of position / hasn't set his feet, he can still hit a heavy ball that's hard to attack. That's why commentators always say something to the effect of "you have to hit several great shots to simply win a point against Nadal."

yeah that I know : he could extract a great point from a very bad position, which his knee does not like that much...anyway thanks for the explanation :)
something I don't get is why is an aggressive player like Soderling is helpless againt Federer ? Is it because the direcional control is simply one of the greatest or because Soderling is not good with reaching balls ? And is Murray any better with that (meaning getting to difficult balls and returning them into the court in a good tactical position to prepare re-entering in the point from a more neutral point) ?

My answer would be a big aggressive forehand. Not that I know, but when you mentioned Gonzo it looks like it :-)

ah now that's better, thnx :)

How do I get the second video? I'm already subscribed, and there's no box to enter my email anyway.

Woops sorry. Fixed now.

interessting...

Murray has had a pretty easy draw.

i am british, but i don't like him. still, he's a great player

I feel the same. he's too arrogant for my liking. but of course, he's a fantastic player.

I do not have inside information like you guys, so I don't know what to say.
I like watching him on the tennis court, unless he is beating one of my favorite players of course :-)

I'm not british but he seems just fine to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDrQ6wtlsUM

Hi Will,
I've just posted this and ther is the following note above my post:
'Your comment is awaiting moderation'
Can you please explain?

Thanks,
mstennis

Why? Just courios.

i am football (soccer) fan, and 3 years ago, just before the world cup, he said he'd support any team that england play. what annoyed me mostly was the fact that he was meddling in a sport that was irrelevant to his. this was just before his first grand slam, and so since i've always supported whoever he's played, as has the majority of the rest of my family

But, if you don't hear some of his other videos/interviews, he was joking. The question was really stupid. The media made fun of Scotland in sports, as a joking matter, and Andy didn't mind. But when he made a joke, everyone took it seriously. This is why I hate British media. They stretch the truth, and are just rude people. Whenever Andy wins a match he's English, but when he loses he's Scottish? What is wrong with them? Wish he could play for Scotland, it'd be so much better for him and everyone. I'm American and I still love him. He's a great person.

when i said 'he's a british winner but a scottish loser' it was a joke. i have hated andy murray since the second he stepped onto a tennis court. when he wins, nobody calls him english, but many people call him british, although, to me, he's scottish, not british.

he was 19 at the time - what 19 year old doesn't say inappropriate comments about football every now and then. he has matured considerably since - and i doubt he would make a similar comment now

i don't particularly care how old he was, i think he meddled in a sport besides his own, and i don't like him for it.

Not entirely true, too many English people seem to still believe he was entirely serious when he said that, I wish people would just look into things to find out if they're true rather than hearing about it and assuming it is.

"Murray identifies himself as "Scottish, but also British". Prior to Wimbledon 2006, Murray caused some public debate when he was quoted as saying he would "support anyone but England" at the 2006 World Cup. He received large amounts of hate mail on his website as a result. It was also reported (incorrectly, it turned out) that Murray had worn a Paraguay shirt on the day of England's World Cup match with the South American team.

Murray explained that his comments were said in jest during a light-hearted interview with sports columnist Des Kelly, who asked him if he would be supporting Scotland in the World Cup, in the knowledge that Scotland had failed to qualify for the tournament. Kelly stated another tabloid had later "lifted a couple of them [comments] into a 'story' that took on a life of its own and from there the truth was lost" and that he despaired over the "nonsensical criticism"."

Why is it that when he loses he's scottish, but when he wins he's english? He's not even english. England is part of a nation called UK, or the United Kingdom/Britain. It includes England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Andy's playing for Britain. He's a die-heart scottish. You just can't stand it when he loses, but the same rude, inconsiderate, jerkoff manner says that he's only English when he's a winner. That's like saying that if I played professional tennis, that when I won I won for the US but when I lost I was a New Jersian.

Are you serious? He said it jokingly to somebody asking if he'd be supporting Scotland in the World Cup knowing they weren't even in it. Ridiculous to not like him because of some banter that was taken out of context by other media. You need to get a grip.

i don't care. the fact is he said that he'd support anyone but england, so ill support anyone but murray. to me, he's a scottish loser, but a british winner

Oops, I'm a football fan as wel so I have no comment.