I got up this morning to watch the Australian Open final and I ended up like many British tennis fans dissapointed. Except I didn't. Because as a tennis fan, it would be hard not to admire the power and athleticism of Novak Djokovic who played the perfect match. He outplayed Murray from game one and was, quie simply, too good.
The papers tomorrow morning will no doubt be describing the "dour Scot" who looked lethargic, who is the next in-line of British tennis players who gets to the big occasion and then bottles it. He will be the 'new Henman', the new choker. They will mention how he has now played 9 sets in Grand Slam finals and hasn't even managed to take one to a tiebreak.
Tim Henman was, undoubtedly, a very good tennis player. It takes great skill, determination and, dare I say it, bottle to reach the multiple grand slam semi-finals that he achieved in his consistent career. Even more impressive that he should reach four of these at Wimbledon where every time he missed a shot, the whole nation appeared to groan over his shoulder. Every time he lost in Grand Slams, Tim lost to the eventual winner. He was at one point in the top four tennis players in the world whilst playing with Hewitt, Sampras, Agassi, a young Federer and early Roddick.
Andy Murray has surpassed Tim's achievements by the age of 23. He has reached three grand slam finals, losing twice to the greatest tennis player to have ever lived, and the third time to the best tennis player in the word right now. He has won other massive tournaments, already got the semi-final of Wimbledon, been as high as Number Two in the world and yet this still isn't good enough for the British media. Until he ends the Fred Perry hoodoo, he will always be viewed as a failure and this is very unfortunate.
To be a great tennis player you have to win a major, I accept. However, you don't get to that stage through hard work in the gym or on the practice court alone. You get to that moment through raw genius ability and confidence to totally seize your moment. Even some of the best players have not been able to produce this. If Murray were never to win a slam, he would join the company of players such as the brilliantly-named Mark Philippousis, Henri Leconte, Thomas Enqvist and Todd Martin. There is no disgrace in not winning a major especially in one of the most competitive eras in mens tennis of all time.
Murray may do it. He may become the player who can take the big match by the neck and play the perfect tennis. To win a major you have to play on the day so that, no matter how well your opponent is playing, you will win. I'm still not sure Murray has that ability but, no matter what the papers write about his career, if he keeps giving himself the opportunity and coming up short he is certainly not a failure. It would be like not managing to win the Tour de France up against Lance Armstrong, writing the second-best album of the year when OK Computer was relased or finishing a sprint a second after Usain Bolt. Just because you don't reach perfection, doesn't mean you don't deserve credit for having that ambition. Alternatively, Murray could just give up now and that really would be a shame.
The papers tomorrow morning will no doubt be describing the "dour Scot" who looked lethargic, who is the next in-line of British tennis players who gets to the big occasion and then bottles it. He will be the 'new Henman', the new choker. They will mention how he has now played 9 sets in Grand Slam finals and hasn't even managed to take one to a tiebreak.
Tim Henman was, undoubtedly, a very good tennis player. It takes great skill, determination and, dare I say it, bottle to reach the multiple grand slam semi-finals that he achieved in his consistent career. Even more impressive that he should reach four of these at Wimbledon where every time he missed a shot, the whole nation appeared to groan over his shoulder. Every time he lost in Grand Slams, Tim lost to the eventual winner. He was at one point in the top four tennis players in the world whilst playing with Hewitt, Sampras, Agassi, a young Federer and early Roddick.
Andy Murray has surpassed Tim's achievements by the age of 23. He has reached three grand slam finals, losing twice to the greatest tennis player to have ever lived, and the third time to the best tennis player in the word right now. He has won other massive tournaments, already got the semi-final of Wimbledon, been as high as Number Two in the world and yet this still isn't good enough for the British media. Until he ends the Fred Perry hoodoo, he will always be viewed as a failure and this is very unfortunate.
To be a great tennis player you have to win a major, I accept. However, you don't get to that stage through hard work in the gym or on the practice court alone. You get to that moment through raw genius ability and confidence to totally seize your moment. Even some of the best players have not been able to produce this. If Murray were never to win a slam, he would join the company of players such as the brilliantly-named Mark Philippousis, Henri Leconte, Thomas Enqvist and Todd Martin. There is no disgrace in not winning a major especially in one of the most competitive eras in mens tennis of all time.
Murray may do it. He may become the player who can take the big match by the neck and play the perfect tennis. To win a major you have to play on the day so that, no matter how well your opponent is playing, you will win. I'm still not sure Murray has that ability but, no matter what the papers write about his career, if he keeps giving himself the opportunity and coming up short he is certainly not a failure. It would be like not managing to win the Tour de France up against Lance Armstrong, writing the second-best album of the year when OK Computer was relased or finishing a sprint a second after Usain Bolt. Just because you don't reach perfection, doesn't mean you don't deserve credit for having that ambition. Alternatively, Murray could just give up now and that really would be a shame.
