Column: Cometh the hour, wilteth the Andy Murray

July 03, 2009, 09:20 PM | Community Column | fuzzyballs
Once again, with his draw opened up in a slam, Murray fails to perform.

Australian Open: Lost to Verdasco but has beaten him handily in all subsequent meetings. Murray of course lost the one that really counted.

French Open: Played a stinker of a match against Gonzalez, spent most of the match scurrying two meters behind the baseline like a rat.

Wimbledon: Goes into the match as clear favourite, against a guy he is 6-2 up in the H2H against, and whom had just come through a well past best Hewitt in five sets. Murray like the champ he is put in his worst serving performance of the tournament, returned dreadfully, and floated back about 90% of his shots off both wings.

The media need to realise that the chances of Murray winning a slam at all now are rather low (history backs this up) and with a second serve that seems to be declining (78mph!) he's always going to come up short against a top player putting in a good performance.

It looks very much like the slams are just a step too far in terms of physical requirements and the level of the opposition (players generally put in better performances in slams that MS tournaments).

I find it amusing when people say "oh he's only 22", because the story will always be the same, "oh he's only 25/30/retired". Players have a relatively small window of opportunity in which to step up, and if they fail to take it they tend to fade into obscurity.
Community Column | fuzzyballs
The views expressed in the article above are those of the author and therefore do not necessarily reflect the views of MurraysWorld as an organisation. How do I submit my own column?
Interested in writing your own column for this website? Here's how it works:

1. You write an article and submit it using this online form.

2. A staff member evaluates your article to make sure it complies with our editorial guidelines (see drop-down below).

3. When approved, the article is published on the main website and will receive the following exposure:

* Columns page
* Google News (As a Google News Publisher, our articles are treated like mainstream press)
* Rightside of website (See section on the right panel called 'Latest Columns')
* Appears above the news on the home page for 24 hours.
* Publlished on our Twitter and Facebook accounts, including various other social websites.


Editorial Guidelines 1. Article has minimum word count of 300 words.

2. Article is written in English with good spelling and grammar.

3. Your opinions need to be based on fact but speculation is acceptable to some degree.

4. For Google reasons, we ask that you include 'Andy Murray' in the headline.
add comment | 37 comments
Once again, with his draw opened up in a slam, Murray fails to perform.

AO: Lost to Verdasco, but has beaten him handily in all subsequent meetings. Murray of course lost the one that really counted.

FO: Played a stinker of a match against Gonzalez, spent most of the match scurrying 2 meters behind the baseline  like a rat.

W: Goes into the match as clear favourite, against a guy he is 6-2 up in H2h against, and whom had just come through a well past best Hewitt in 5 sets.  Murray like the champ he is put in his worst serving performance of the tournament, returned dreadfully, and floated back about 90% of his shots off both wings.

The media need to realise that the chances of Murray winning a slam at all now are rather low (history backs this up) and with a 2nd serve that seems to be declining (78mph!) he's always going to come up short against a top player putting in a good performance (as Roddick did today). It looks very much like the slams are just a step to far in terms of physical requirements and the level of the opposition (players generally put in better performances in slams that MS tournaments).

I find it amusing when people say 'oh he's only 22', because the story will always be the same, 'oh he's only 25/30/retired'. Players have a relatively small window of opportunity in which to step up, and if they fail to take it they tend to fade into obscurity.

So you think he'll never win a slam?
July 03, 2009, 09:21 PM
By Sir Panda

So where have you been hiding, fuzzy, in the last 6 months?
July 03, 2009, 09:24 PM
By Allan

So you think he'll never win a slam?

Has today's performance convinced you that this belief is more or less erroneous?
July 03, 2009, 09:29 PM
By fuzzyballs

A relatively sensible post from you, but not entirely fair. I plan/planned on making a thread going over all the positives/negatives of this tournament, but the "great h2h against an opponent, only to lose in a slam" thing was someting I wanted to touch on and see what other people thought about. I think the next two slams are so important to Andy. It's crazy. If he wins the US, I know there will be so many people (myself included) suddenly thinking the sky is the limit and that he can win anything - and I think that will be the case. I don't want to put a number on it, but it could be very impressive. However, if he DOESN'T win either of those two, suddenly it starts looking very bleak. He'd be 23 by RG, and we can't expect the first slam to come there or, in all honesty, at Wimbledon. Wimby is going to get harder and harder every year now, especially if he isn't already a slam winner going into the tournament. By then he's 23, with just two slams left as a 23 year old. And by then we're saying what I'm saying now "ok - he needs this one". I wonder how long and how often we can do that.

This US Open is massive.
July 03, 2009, 09:29 PM
By Ghostbuster

So where have you been hiding, fuzzy, in the last 6 months?

Did I miss something important? Did Murray win a slam?
July 03, 2009, 09:30 PM
By fuzzyballs

Has today's performance convinced you that this belief is more or less erroneous?

I like that you write off his entire career based on one defeat. You're a genius.
July 03, 2009, 09:30 PM
By Joe

Did I miss something important? Did Murray win a slam?
Fuzzy!  You are here.... a much more refreshing blast than the usual.  You know it's only a matter of time..... you know it......  yes
July 03, 2009, 09:31 PM
By Elly

A relatively sensible post from you, but not entirely fair. I plan/planned on making a thread going over all the positives/negatives of this tournament, but the "great h2h against an pponent, only to lose in a slam" thing was someting I wanted to touch on and see what other people thought about. I think the next two slams are so important to Andy. It's crazy. If he wins the US, I know there will be so many people (myself included) suddenly thinking the sky is the limit and that he can win anything - and I think that will be the case. I don't want to put a number on it, but it could be very impressive. However, if he DOESN'T win either of those two, suddenly it starts looking very bleak. He'd be 23 by RG, and we can't expect the first slam to come there or, in all honesty, at Wimbledon. Wimby is going to get harder and harder every year now, especially if he isn't already a slam winner going into the tournament. By then he's 23, with just two slams left as a 23 year old. And by then we're saying what I'm saying now "ok - he needs this one". I wonder how long and how often we can do that.

This US Open is massive.


With Federer back to his best, Nadal looking to reassert himself and the rest of the field viewing Murray as someone against whom they have a shot in a 5 set format, I'd say his chances at the USO are very slim indeed. What happened to him today ant Wimbledon could easily happen at the USO.
July 03, 2009, 09:32 PM
By fuzzyballs

Been missing your unique approach Fuzzy .... Whistle
July 03, 2009, 09:33 PM
By Daisy

Fuzzy!  You are here.... a much more refreshing blast than the usual.  You know it's only a matter of time..... you know it......  yes

It's been 'only a matter of time' for a few years now. Time won't wait for Murray to grow a pair.
July 03, 2009, 09:33 PM
By fuzzyballs

add comment | 37 comments