!105627933 by Pete Bodo
Afternoon, folks. I'm a little late to the county fair today, but I did post some thoughts on Murray's win in Shanghai over at ESPN.com, focusing mainly on the emerging "best player who's never won a major" narrative. That line of inquiry will now pick up even more steam, calling on Murray to develop even stronger mental powers to resist frustration and self-doubt. His challenge going forward will be to keep a cool, level head—to resist trying too hard to compensate for appearing like he may not be trying hard enough. It's a tough situation, which is why, with rare exceptions (Roger Federer), a player is better off winning that first Grand Slam title, by hook or by crook, earlier rather than later in his career.
When a 21-year-old Federer won his first major (Wimbledon) in 2003, he had but one Masters title to his name. Contrast that with Murray, 23, who now has six Masters shields but no majors, yet. Murray's success at these particular events has been impressive, but it's brought upon himself a level of grief that Federer didn't have to contend with.
Murray's performance against Federer raised an interesting issue in regards to the recent tune-up/reconstruction that Federer has undertaken. His new, aggressive mentality, nurtured by Paul Annacone, has paid some obvious benefits, particularly against Novak Djokovic and Robin Soderling. The draw might have thrown him a Tomas Berdych or Marin Cilic as well, if further confirmation were needed that he's on the right track.
But few of those guys are in Murray's class when it comes to stretching the court and playing great defense—not even Djokovic, although he comes close. It's hard to base too much on one match, especially when Murray played lights-out tennis and Federer did not. But it seems to me that the aggressive tactics and strategies that TMF can employ against some of the better sluggers in the game just aren't going to be good enough against Murray.
Murray has been to two finals and two semis at Grand Slam events. He lost both finals to Federer, and one semi apiece (both at Wimbledon) to Rafael Nadal and Andy Roddick. It isn't like Murray doesn't have the game, or the general stamina, to endure two-week events, although it's an attractive theory. His biggest shortcoming was the ragged quality of his play in the Australian Open early this year. He didn't play like a guy who's been there before, but it would be imprudent to read too much into that lapse. You couldn't say a negative thing about him on the other three occasions when he was one of the last two or four men standing.
The biggest challenge for Murray from here on out will be navigating the mental maze created by his excellent record in Masters events and his head-to-head record superiority over Federer. Murray has an 8-5 record against Federer, and each of those wins has resonated through the tennis world. But Murray is 4-8 against Nadal, and 3-4 against Djokovic. Murray is at his best on hard courts, so if you take clay-court events out of the equation, the numbers change. Every match Murray has played against Federer has been on hard courts, but on hard courts he's in a dead heat with his two other main rivals—4-4 with Nadal and 3-3 with Djokovic. Given that two of the majors are contested on hard courts, you have to like Murray's chances to win a major soon.
Murray's main chore will be elevating his game at the late stages of major events. He's had trouble doing that, as we saw in Australia but even more significantly, perhaps, at the U.S. Open. The courts in New York seem more favorable to his game than those of Melbourne, because the ball doesn't bounce as high or respond as dramatically to topspin. It also penetrates the court more effectively at Flushing Meadows. Those surface properties all work to the advantage for a quick counter-puncher who has a nose for the openings across the net, as Lleyton Hewitt (who has assets comparable to Murray's own) demonstrated. But after reaching the 2008 U.S. Open final, Murray absorbed back-to-back losses to Cilic (fourth round) and Stan Wawrinka (third round) in subsequent years. Those two guys are fine players, but they're exactly the type of player an aspiring U.S. Open champ must beat.
Also, Murray probably needs to be more aggressive, mentally as well as strategically, in the later stages of Grand Slams. More than at Masters events, it seems, he tends to play reactive tennis in a way that isn't productive. It's as if he feels that he can't get away at majors with what he does at Masters events, or he at least has trouble sustaining his focus and determination at two-week events. Murray can be moody, and the chances of having a bad mood spoil your day is greater over a 14-day than in a one-week span. That part is pretty simple, anyway.
Murray has undoubtedly squandered opportunities at majors, but almost every other player has as well. Usually, it's part of the process of maturation. But with the events of 2010 mostly behind us, Murray may have a problem of his own, comparable to the problem Federer has with Murray. And that's Nadal, who's a better hard court player now than he was in the course of building that 4-4 hard court head-to-head. The chance that someone will eliminate Nadal from any given hard court tournament before he gets a whack at Murray has diminshed. And if Nadal finishes this hard-court fall season strong, he'll pose a formidable obstacle to Murray in Melbourne. For Nadal's combination of athleticism and consistency will create plenty of problems for Murray, who's at his most lethal when an opponent is willing to take more risks than does Nadal.
In some ways, Murray's skill set is as effective as his opponent allows it to be, and in tennis it's always better when your fate is in your own hands.