Opinion: Stagnation Strikes Scot

By Arthur King
© Natasha Peterson/Corleve

(August 8, 2010) When Andy Murray opened the season taking down John Isner, Rafael Nadal and Marin Cilic in succession to reach the Australian Open final in January, his first career major title was within reach. Then the fifth-seeded Scot played tentative tennis at times in a 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(11) loss to Roger Federer in the Australian Open final.

Murray entered the match with a 6-4 career edge over Federer, but the Swiss has scored straight-sets sweeps in their two Grand Slam final meetings: at the 2008 US Open and on a Sunday night in Melbourne last January.

In the six months that have passed since that final, neither Federer nor Murray has won a title and the way each man has responded to his slump is significant.

Recognizing the need to incorporate net play and an attacking mind-set with the US Open three weeks away, Federer has been working with Paul Annacone, Pete Sampras' former coach, and a man who spent his entire career playing serve-and-volley tennis. Federer sees an issue in his game and tries to address it.

What did Murray do?

He fired his coach, Miles Maclagan, without a succession plan in place.

Maclagan was on Sky Sports here in the UK, calling Murray "a smart player."

If Murray was a smart guy, then why did he pour an 84 mph milk shake of a serve against Nadal in the Wimbledon semifinal? If Murray is a smart guy, why doesn't he correct the issues in his game: passive play, lethargic forehand and a low service percentage.

Murray's second serve is a weakness and he is still too passive on pivotal points. Yes, Murray has had success in reaching two major finals and the former US Open junior champion can be a threat in New York later this month. But the bottom line is Murray has not won a set in a major final.

Hall of Famer Boris Becker believes Murray must increase his aggression if he is to break through and win his first major.

"How assertive he was in the final was always going to be crucial. At the very start of the match he went head to head with Roger, but he then reverted to his usual defensive game, and allowed Roger to play such great tennis," Becker said in January. "Even when he had set points, in the third set, he could not take the big step. He tried to attack, but a mid-court forehand let him down. It is not a shot he would usually select, and on the big points, tennis players revert to instinct. It was a revealing moment, and one which showed that Andy now needs to improve technically, to ingrain the killer shot so deep inside him that it becomes instinctive to play it at the right moment, like Roger. That is the next stage in his progression."

Progress will have to wait.

Clearly, Murray has stagnated. To some observers, Murray has fallen victim to the Han Christian Anderson syndrome: his see through tactics are now well read by opponents in major matches. Remember what Marin Cilic did to Murray at the US Open?

A semifinal at Wimbledon is a strong result, no question, but the truth about Murray is this: the bigger hitters will continue to enjoy a feeding frenzy on his fragile forehand.

For all the talk about Murray being "a smart guy" has he played intelligent tennis in majors and has he astutely managed his career off court ?

Is it a smart man who cuts his hand on his strings punching his racquet in the face in frustration? Murray has the athletic ability, money and power here in the UK but he will never win a major with his present game.

He is only 23, but already the window of opportunity is closing.

Arthur King is a Liverpool-based tennis and health researcher and writer. His previous articles include Interview: Richard Kraijcek 1996 Wimbledon Champion. An avid tennis player and technician, he is an accomplished yoga instructor. Please visit his website at kingarthurusa.com.