Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Poor old Andy Murray has come up short again, admittedly over 5 sets but short is short. His Australian Open is over for another year, having not even reached the final this time.
Murray may be unlucky in that he is playing in an era of supremely talented players, as some commentators suggest, but this excuse could have been used by any number of 'nearly-men' over the decades. What of those who had to compete against Laver and Rosewall, Newcombe, Connors, Borg and McEnroe, Edberg and Becker, Sampras and so on ?
On court on Friday, Murray looked a mess. His generally scruffy appearance does not encourage confidence and his demeanour likewise; his swings of humour surely cannot help his concentraion. During the second set, his opponent, the hugely talented, and far better presented, Novak Djokovic, seemed to be heading for an early bath as he exhibited clear signs of some form of debility - whether he was injured, tired, ill or simply playing 'rope-a-dope' as suggested by the BBC's inane commentators does not really matter. What does matter is that even when clearly not as his best, Djokovic still had enough talent and determination to see off the erratic and temperamental Scot.
Some 'experts' claim to have taken heart from Murray's latest defeat, suggesting that the length of the match indicates that he has significantly closed the gap to the 'Big 3'. Poppycock. When it comes to 'Grand Slams', he is distinctly 4th best; in 3 finals, he has yet to win a set, while yesterday's loss was to a man who was most definitely less than 100% fit. It seems inevitable that Murray will find it increasingly difficult to maintain his world ranking as the next generation comes up. Although Federer has undoubtedly seen his best days, Nadal and Djokovic seem certain to stay as the top 2 for some time to come; Tsonga is knocking on the door and Del Potro may yet return to his best. Whether Murray will ever win a 'Grand Slam' has to be highly debatable.
None of this is to decry Murray's undoubted talent, nor his acievements to date, but the way in which the British media continually overplays these achievements does him no service. He is the best player these islands have produced since the far-off days of Fred Perry and, given the enormous changes in the game over the intervening years, he is probably our best player ever but he is not a real winner. His talent is not as great as that of his principal rivals and his mental attitude does not bear comparison; it may be that addressing the second may help him to improve the first, but that, too, is debatable. Can Ivan Lendl, his new mentor, sort him out ? Who knows !
What is sure is that Murray is unlikely to make any sort of breakthrough at the French Open while the manic expectations of the British press make Wimbledon success even more difficult than it would otherwise be. Might he have a serious chance in the US in the autumn ? Maybe, if Lendl can work some magic, but he'll still have to find a way passed Nadal and Djokovic and, quite probably, Tsonga, Del Potro, and Ferrer as well as numerous 'up-and-comers'; and there's Federer, of course, as always. I suggest not holding one's breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment