Unhealthy expectation levels on Andy Murray will not help his grand-slam quest
The Daily Telegraph, 12th September 2009
Andy Murray is being accused of fluffing his lines. In truth, he’s been appallingly miscast. How would you like to act the part of greatness before you’ve even mastered being consistently very good?
Murray is a serious talent being hurled at a destiny that may never be his. It is becoming comic. Every major tournament is preceded by the implication that Murray is standing not only on the brink of winning, but on the verge of world domination.
The run-up to the US Open was just the latest instalment of the disgraceful inflation of Murray’s prospects. A huge advert for the tournament was splashed across the national press, showing Murray standing head and shoulders above minor tennis players like Roger Federer and Raphael Nadal. ‘Is this the one?’ it asked. That’ll be a no.
And with apologies to Andre Agassi, I fail to understand how Murray can start any grand slam tournament as the favourite until both Nadal and Federer have retired, or Murray has beaten each of them in a grand slam final.
That is the problem with the whole ‘Why can’t Murray win a grand slam?’ debate. The media has it the wrong way around. Far from being a genius tormented by the delayed fulfilment of his inevitable brilliance, Murray is a good player fighting to maintain his career’s trajectory. Seeing him as tennis’s Phil Mickelson is a serious category error.
There have been plenty of decent theories flying around since Murray’s fourth round defeat in New York. It’s hard not to warm to John McEnroe’s view that Murray trains too hard between matches. Lots of professional sportsmen over-train. It is a comfort blanket. Worried about losing? Train like a madman so that no-one can blame a lack of effort. But that’s the easy way. Far braver is getting the balance right between practice, rest and staying interested. Training is like rehearsing: you should always remember it doesn’t count.
And it is true that Murray seems prone to waiting for opponents to lose rather than taking the initiative himself. Sometimes big matches demand boldness not just playing the percentages. Murray has always liked making opponents lose matches; now he might have to win some on his own.
It’s the same in cricket. There are lots of limited batsmen who are relentless in accumulating hundreds against moderate bowling attacks. But when the bowling improves, without the shots to dominate, they shrink into their shells.
All these questions are things for Murray to think about. But there is a far simpler explanation why he didn’t win in New York. He is good, but not yet as good as we want him to be.
How often do we hear about ‘who Murray is due to meet in the final’? Murray might be ranked number two – achieved when Nadal was out injured – but he isn’t due to meet anyone in the final. Murray has only played in one grand slam final, which he lost. No disgrace in that. But we are not talking about Roger Federer, who has reached the semi-finals or better in the last 22 grand slams.
In fact, we are quite a long way – about 15 grand slam titles – from having to explain why Murray didn’t win a tournament. Isn’t it more sensible to wait first for the pleasure of explaining why he has won a grand slam, at least once?
Expectation is being muddled up with reality – and the real loser may end up being Murray. He is in danger of being portrayed as a has-been before he ever was. It is as though our impatience for him to achieve greatness is so great that we can’t bear to wait.
His career is hurtling into a kind of post-modernist meta-narrative, in which real events (titles won) can be elegantly ignored. We want a great player, ergo we have one. Murray is thus held accountable for a shortfall that was entirely fabricated. ‘I’ll bounce back’, Murray is made to say, before he has a perch to fall off.
Worst of all is the creeping rumour that Murray is a ‘choker’. I think quite the opposite. Murray has always been a fierce competitor. But he had a good temperament at a young age, and you can’t keep getting better at the mental game indefinitely. In fact, as others catch him up in terms of mental skills, the rest of Murray’s game is looking more exposed.
So Murray faces two challenges. First the strategic one of playing aggressively when the stakes are high, secondly the psychological test of handling burgeoning and unrealistic expectation.
Can he do it, and conquer a grand slam? I think so, but we will have to live with uncertainty until he does. That is the nature of sport. Above all, if he does get there, let us at least have the courtesy to enjoy a first title in real time, not wearied by the misconception that it was always predestined.