Prior to Andy Murray's semi-final against defending Wimbledon champion Rafael Nadal, a number of the tennis world's experts gave their own tactical analysis on how the Scot could potentially beat Nadal and end Britain's 75-year wait for a Wimbledon champion. John McEnroe, Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski were full of enthusiasm for the potential of a Brit in the final, but all realised that Murray would have to be at his best if he were to stand any chance.
Hindsight tells us that this enthusiasm was always going to be short-lived.
McEnroe's advice to Murray was to "get under Nadal's skin". He advised Murray to upset the Spaniards routine if possible. Proactivity was the approach suggested by Henman. Whilst being a valuable point, warnings against cautiousness from possibly the least aggressive player to ever play the game would have been taken with a pinch of salt by Murray. Rusedksi took the same approach as McEnroe in stating the importance of Murray giving Nadal as few chances as possible to take control, which could apparently be achieved by putting his second serves out wide in order to control the resulting rally.
We could go on forever about what might have been, how Murray could have won the Championship if he'd done things in certain ways. But the disappointing fact is that he didn't make the final, suffering a third successive Grandslam defeat to Nadal. At least he managed to win a set this time.
So what is Murray's game missing? What does he have to do in order to compete with the greats of Federer, Nadal, and the man of the moment Novak Djokovic? Britain wants answers because, quite frankly, 75 years without producing a Wimbledon champion is simply not good enough for a country who prides itself on its grassroots sport. I refuse to accept that Murray lacks the talent and ability to win a major grandslam, but questions must be asked of the mentality of the Scot, who is currently living up to the all too familiar stereotype of Britain bottling it when the heat is on.
I do not believe that there are any major technical issues in Murray's game at fault for his continuing disappointment against the big names in tennis. Some may say that Federer is simply of a different class. This may well be true, in which case Murray has little to complain about. However, I believe that a negative psychological state, or rather a lack of a positive one, is to blame for him failing to find his best tennis when it matters most.
When you look at the unrivaled consistency of Federer and Nadal over the last eight or so years, with the pair swapping the No.1 and 2 spot almost annually, it is fair to say that they have been in a different league to the rest of the tennis world. This consistency is emphasised by the 23 Grand Slam finals in which Roger has appeared, 10 of which were consecutive appearances. Nadal's 10 Grand Slam wins compared to Murray's unfortunate none is proof that he too is a different quality of player. I put this consistent success down to a winning mentality and a mature, professional attitude which Murray is yet to develop.
Sports Psychologists will say a skilled player will make a difficult skill look easy. This is certainly the case with the 'big three'. Feds, Rafa and Novak indeed move around the court with such speed and grace, but then again so does Murray. His movement is one of his most highly praised attributes, reiterating the fact that he is undoubtedly a talented player. But this seems to be of little use against the more experienced big guns, who seem to be outplaying him psychologically.
Maybe Murray just needs time in order to develop the professional attitude and winning mentality clearly required to win Grand Slams. But he hasn't got long. Nadal's junior by just one year, I think time is running out for the Scot if he wants to go down in history as a multiple Grand Slam winner. Forgive me Murray Mount, but your beloved Andy's cross-court backhand will never be enough to match the likes of Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, unless he escapes the grasp of the weak British psych which has plagued our sportsmen for generations.
No comments:
Post a Comment