1. Relative to his own overall record on the various surfaces, his clay tournament finals result record is by far the poorest.
I won't go into every detail, but hopefully this should be sufficient to demonstrate his proficiency or lack thereof relative to the other surfaces:
hard: 22 13
grass: 3 1
clay: 0 0
He also won 1 tourney on the now defunct carpet.
He has 4 semifinal and 6 QF results on clay out of 28 major (1 SF, 2 QF) and masters 1000 (3 SF, 4 QF) tournaments played,
which is approximately equal to his early round exits on clay (9 in the 1st or 2nd round).
2. Relative to his competition on various surfaces, both historically and currently, his overall record on clay is relatively poor.
Using the ATP career reliability index (based on match win pct), he is historically ranked 8th on grass (.813), 10th on hard (.783), and 99th on clay (.602).
There are 16 active players ranked ahead of him on clay.
3. Relative to his competition, he doesn't move as well on clay vs. the other surfaces. In my judgement, his movement and footwork is best on hard, then grass, then clay.
4. Mental - relative lack of clay aura. Other players see him as more beatable on clay, and he probably sees himself as more beatable. Confidence is a big factor at this level.
Of course, these factors are interrelated. Relative lack of good movement/footwork on clay affects results, which affect a player's mentality and aura.
There has been some improvement on clay since he began playing, some crediting various coaches helping him, but it is not consistent. He appears to improve, then he backslides.
I think his better results on clay have come from his basic improvement in all areas of his game over time. In my judgement, I think it will be difficult for him to improve his movement/footwork/sliding on clay at this point in his career, which will always handicap his results versus his current competition. He might get better results if his competition falls off the radar scope. I wish all the best for him; he seems like a good hard working guy.
This is how I see it, relatively speaking...
I am actually not sure what are you trying to prove here. I think it’s a known fact that Andy’s results on clay are pretty poor compared to his other success on other surfaces namely hard and grass. In fact, you will not find any player in history that was equally great on all surfaces. Nadal, for instance, is great on clay and grass but he’s not quite there on hard. On top of that, 70% of his total success is on clay. His only title on hard court, 2010 USO, which came almost 10 years after his time on tour, can be seen as a fluke. The kind of draw he had, give similar draw to Murray on clay, where he’d hardly have to face any true clay-courter, and he gets the title too. And let’s not forget, Murray has almost never played any 250 or 500 clay tournament in his life. So we need to look into those details as well.
And Federer’s success on clay is not as clear cut either. Even in his prime, he wasn’t able to beat a much younger Nadal on clay. And please don’t throw ‘Nadal is the greatest clay player of all time so that makes sense as to why Federer couldn’t get a major win’ etc. stuff. That’s just too convenient – but not only that, until you put Nadal against all the past clay champions, your statement will stay just as ‘relative’. Once Nole gets a win over Nadal at RG, he will surpass Federer’s success on clay by a good margin. It’s only a matter of time now.
And even though Nole has won Wimbledon, he will find a hard time to win another one. In fact, that’s his only title on grass, so it’s not like he’s really a miracle worker on grass. As I see it, he has at least 5 people in front of him who can take him out.
Also, Murray’s priority has never been clay. If he had been really keen, he could have won a few small clay tournaments by now to build his case, but his case was never so easy or simple. His priority had always been to win a Slam first and it made sense that USO, AO and Wimbledon had always been his main target. RG had to take a backseat in all this and clay season in general. So you need to take all this into account before you show any kind of table, because these are the biggest factors and reason for him as to why he had such a small success on clay.
Most importantly, Murray doesn’t even need to do too well on clay. Sampras was pretty mediocre on clay and yet he won 14 Slams and was at No. 1 for six straight years – something Federer could never achieve even when he had the easiest time around in his era. So Murray can definitely bank his career on hard and grass, which account the same percentage of tournaments as the 90s and achieve many great things. But I am sure given that he has still a few good years left in him and the fact that, his game suits clay much better than Sampras and once his all other priorities are also completed, he’ll focus on clay. Let the battle remain between Nole and Nadal for now. But once all is said and down, who knows where he would stand in terms of his success on clay.
I agree however that his serves are somewhat compromised on clay which is a big deal and that he’s a bit afraid of moving/sliding as freely on clay - another big deal for him no doubt. He cares about Wimbledon a great deal and RG being just prior, I can see why he’d want to be so careful. In fact, the whole season right after RG is pretty big for him so rather stay healthy for the next six months than to jeopardize his health for the sake of improving on a surface, that doesn’t come naturally to him. That would be a fool’s decision at its best if he were to do so.