The unfortunate case of Andy Murray

Since emerging in 2003, Murray has won a total of 328 games, and lost 107.
He has amassed 22 titles and pocketed £11,162,077 ($17,533,391) in prize money (not including his most recent winnings for reaching the 2012 Australian Open semifinals).

As of 2008, Murray has never dropped bellow world number 4 in the ATP rankings, reaching a career best of world number 2 in August 2009.

Murray is a successful, brilliant tennis player and one of the world's greats. But he is not a lucky man.

For any who doubt the talent of Murray, a quick flick through the highlights of today's Australian Open semifinal against Novak Djokovic (arguably the funniest - and most skilled - player in world tennis) presents a compelling case for Murray's lack of lady luck. In four hours and five minutes of world class sport, Murray lost to Djokovic in five sets:  6-3 3-6 6-7 (4-7) 6-1 7-5.

Pundits the world over have spun the familiar yarn concerning Murray's lack of 'winning mentality', bemoaning his negativity and never-ceasing ability to bottle major chances - yet today's game drove a ferocious smash straight through any such nonsense. Murray is not a bottler; he doesn't lack a mental edge nor fail to prepare a game plan for the big occasion. The failing doesn't lie with Andy Murray - he is simply the 4th best tennis player in the world.

Unfortunately for him, that is all he may ever be.

We live in a golden age of men's tennis. Any generation of the game would have been thrilled to have witnessed the majestic skills of Federer for years on end - and yet we were treated to the arrival of a muscle bound underdog from Spain, with an apatite for running around EVERY shot to unleash the biggest forehand the game has seen. The power of Rafa Nadal provided a glorious contrast to Federer's mastery of every shot, and none complained about the prospect of year after year of titanic battles between two. But then, just as Federer's grip on the game dwindled and Rafa appeared unstoppable, Novak Djokovic announced his credentials with victory in the Australian Open in 2008 - a player not claiming to have the mastery of Federer, nor the power of Nadal, but rather boasting the incredible mental focus and grit, resulting in him being able to beat the two best players in history.

Since 2006, only one Grand Slam final has been won by a player other than Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, when Martin del Potro managed to snatch the US Open. 

With Murray 5-2 down in the final set of today's game, British tennis fans gave a deep, familiar sigh. I for one am not disappointed with Murray - particularly when he rises to the occasion as he did today, and produces world beating tennis which would have earned him a title in any other generation of the game other than the current one. But that is the luck of Murray. At the other end of the court, thumping back every ground stroke, counter attacking every defensive shot, was a Serbian who has managed to find a way of playing the game better than Federer or Nadal - something that Murray has never managed when it 'really' matters.

The game that Murray lost today could have handed Nadal the final, such was the effort that it took Djokovic to overcome the Scotsman. More significantly though, I would suggest that it was the best game of tennis Murray has played in many years - yet he still lost.

It was possibly the best game of tennis Djokovic has had to play in several years - but that is the difference between the man ranked 4th, and the top three. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all managed to find something within themselves to overcome the man at the other end of the court - while Murray has never won when it matters. He has never won a set in a Grand Slam final, despite making three. He is successful, and brilliant, and skilled - but Murray is more aware than any fan or pundit as to just how important a Grand Slam trophy is for your legacy.

Today, when Murray rounded the game at 5-5 in the final set, I thought we might have been about to witness that missing factor, that finally, Murray was about to gain that vital element of experiencing the win over the 'better' man - the achievement that could see him lift a Grand Slam trophy. And thus, it failed to happen. It almost looked like it couldn't happen - that Djokovic knew he was going to win, simply because he always can if it's Murray at the other end of the court. Murray has beaten Djokovic, and Federer, and Nadal in semifinals before - but the other men have all beaten him in finals, and that is the killer edge that Murray desperately needs if he is going to be anything other than the eternal 'nearly' man of world tennis.

In a golden age such as this, Murray doesn't deserve a Grand Slam title until he can find a way of beating the better man. The unfortunate case for Andy Murray is that just as his game appears to have developed to the point of beating one of the 'big three', one of the others always awaits him in the final. While Murray can overcome one top player, it doesn't appear that he's yet found what it takes to overcome two of them - back to back, when a trophy gleams in the wings and the world expects you to bow to the pattern of recent history.

Federer will continue to dwindle (in his case, this seems the equivalent of a supernova slowly cooling), and while 24-year-old Murray might take hope in the knowledge that he could reach a higher peak in the years to come, there is nothing to prevent 25-year-old Nadal or 24-year-old Djokovic finding an even higher one.

Andy Murray is not a lucky man.